'|[llinois Coal Operators Association 
 
 OFFICE, 1002-3 ELLSWORTH BUILDING 
 
 355 DEARBORN STREET, CHICAGO, ILL. 
 
 
 OFFICERS 
 
 (). L. Garrison, President 
 
 J. A. Agee, Vice-President 
 
 Fj. T. Bent, . Secretary-Treasurer 
 
 C. L. ScROGGS, - - - - Recording Secretary 
 
 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE 
 
 
 \ ' 
 
 r 
 
 O. L. Garrison, Chairman 
 C. L. SckoGGS, Secretary 
 
 / >>5/ District — 
 
 H. N. Taylor, A. L. Sweet, S. M. Dalzell 
 
 Second District — 
 
 J. H. Garaghty, W. W. Keefer 
 
 'hh'd District — 
 
 C. A. Starne, Lee Kincaid, Edwards Brown 
 
 dtirth District — 
 
 D. D. Shumway, F. W. Lukins, Walter Puterbaugh 
 
 "ifth District — 
 
 C. F. Parker, 
 
 Sixth District — 
 
 F. D. Secor, 
 
 Seventh District — 
 
 F. S. Peabody, M. C. Wright 
 
 Eighth District — 
 
 Henry Long, Richard Newsam, G. W. Trakr 
 
 Ninth District — 
 
 Randolph Smith, E. C. Donk, Geo. T. Cutts 
 
 J. C. Muren, a. j. Moorshead 
 e. E. Hull, S. B. Eaton 
 
 the commission 
 
 Herman Justi, Commissioner 
 
 C. L. ScROGGS, Secretary of Commission 
 
ARBITRATION. 
 
 ITS USES AND ABUSES. 
 
 Address delivered at the National Convention of Employer and Employe, 
 Minneapolis, Minn., September 23rd, 1902. 
 
 By Herman Justi, 
 
 Commissioner Illinois Coal Operators Association. 
 
 The subject of this address is suggested by the free- 
 dom with which the term “arbitration” is used as a 
 word to conjure with. Its meaning seems to be little 
 understood, and just at this time it is confounded, 
 even by men who should know better, with mediation, 
 conciliation or friendly intervention. To many people 
 it is something new, and to the popular mind its very 
 novelty places a dangerous glamour about it. The 
 gravity of arbitration and all that it involves is little 
 appreciated, and herein lies one of the prime causes 
 for its abuse. Wise labor leaders and thoughtful 
 employers of labor view it alike with apprehension. 
 
 Any plan of settling labor disputes that is labeled 
 “Arbitration” seems to catch the popular fancy ; but 
 as in all other matters, those who are ignorant of the 
 issues involved and understand the question least, are 
 the very persons who discuss it most, and who are most 
 insistent upon its adoption for everything. With the 
 masses arbitration is the first thought, while with those 
 who are constantly dealing with labor disputes, or 
 with those who have something at stake, as a last 
 resort. 
 
 ^ pt0593 
 
wSpeaking from tlie view- point qf..i<!snc wliose time 
 is entirel}^ occupied in adjusting differences arising 
 between employer and employe in tlic coal mining 
 industry of Illinois, I say that arbitration should never 
 be resorted to save in an extremity, and that the energy 
 and interest displayed in advocating its general adoption 
 could be better applied to all those simpler and more 
 practical plans and methods of adjustment designed to 
 render arbitration unnecessary. 
 
 The popular idea of arbitration is an erroneous one, 
 and if it prevail the labor problem will be complicated 
 instead of simplified. Arbitration’s popular synonym is 
 “compromise,” and there is nothing more mischievous 
 than a compromise on any question of principle. 
 Someone says: “Let the fine-spun rights of the 
 case go, but get to work!” Could anything be 
 more destructive of the foundations of our industrial 
 life? There are some compromises which bring 
 temporary good, it is true, but ultimate destruction 
 must result, and many who ‘have fulfilled the de- 
 mands of the written law will stand accused 
 before the “bar of eternal justice” for a wily 
 evasion of those invisible questions and meanings 
 which have their answer deep in the breast of 
 humanity. 
 
 “What is fairer than arbitration?” is a query heard 
 on all sides. Nothing is fairer than arbitration when 
 arbitration is positively required, when all the parties 
 to the dispute desire their differences arbitrated, and 
 when the arbiters are men who have been selected 
 because of their special fitness for the work. 
 
 4 
 
ATTRIBUTES OF THE ARBITER. 
 
 diffic ulties of wise and just arbitration may b e 
 faintly comprehended when we fairly appreciate the 
 qualities required of an arbiter of the first class. A 
 judge upon the bench may wisely and justly admin- 
 ister his high office, and yet lack some of the 
 essentials of an ideal arbiter in labor disputes; for the 
 arbiter cannot be controlled by general rules or staj} - 
 utes, by precedent, by ge neral information or opinion , 
 or by technicalities, a nd he mu st investigate t h e facts 
 of the case in such a way as the vari ed duties of the 
 office of a judge will not permih| A combination af 
 the qualifications of an arbifeT'lS; indeed rare, for he 
 should be a person possessed of strong human sympa 
 thies, with a calm, judicial mind, with business training 
 or natural business genius, a keen sense of right, true 
 courage, a knowledge of the subject which he is called 
 on to consider in all its phases, and a clear and almost 
 prophetic view of the ultimate consequences of the 
 verdict he is to render. A proper recognition of the 
 true dignity of both labor and capital is an essential 
 element when the equal rights of employer and em- 
 ploye are involved, and the arbiter who, at one 
 and the same time, scorns the deification of Mammon 
 and avoids demagogic allurements, and who will in 
 turbulent seasons keep himself in mid-stream with 
 every faculty intelligently, calmly and sympathetically 
 outstretched toward either shore of feeling, can send 
 upon the most troubled and vexed questions the satis- 
 fying unction of justice, which is ultimately synony- 
 mous with peace. There are few dangers for tlie arbiter 
 who refuses to cling to the enticing shore of popular 
 sentiment, which too often involves the wreckage of 
 
 5 
 
great enterprises on somebody’s, or some corporation’s, ' 
 sordid little rock of individual interest. 
 
 ARBITRATION A MAKE=SHIFT. 
 
 It must thus be clearly seen, that arbitration as a 
 make-shift is an absurdity, utterly useless as a means 
 of promoting industrial peace, and mischievous in its 
 consequences. It must also be just as clear that arbi- 
 tration is equally acceptable to employer and employe 
 when both believe something is to be gained by it, 
 and it meets with equal opposition when there is a 
 mutual conviction of impending loss. “Old Adam” is 
 always on deck; crafty, cunning, but not wisely selfish. 
 
 If wisely selfish, we should hear of “lockouts” and 
 “strikes” only at long intervals, for the “wisely selfish,” 
 if not endowed with good business sense, seek at least 
 to cultivate it, and here let it be understood that the 
 labor problem is a business problem, and that the 
 only relations existing between employer and employe 
 are contract relations, while any other relations are 
 purely voluntary or elective and can only exist by 
 mutual agreement. 
 
 AS AN HEROIC REMEDY. 
 
 While firmly and confidently believing in the ad- 
 vantages of proper arbitration, it must be admitted 
 that the only way to render arbitration efifective is to 
 render it so costly, — so very difficult to obtain, that it 
 will be resorted to as an heroic remedy and not as a 
 panacea for ever}^ ill. That is to say, it should be 
 applied to the labor malady in an extremity, or when 
 every other remedy has failed. 
 
 The truth of this should be patent, for the secret 
 
 6 
 
of all absence of discord in the family system is the 
 co-operative spirit harmoniously applied to the recog- 
 nized rights of the individual members, and where this 
 exists there is no need to resort to the undignified 
 formality of calling in the traditional wise counsellor 
 or friend of the family, to settle the internal difference. 
 An industry, like a family, should not grow dependent 
 upon an alien strength to settle its disputes, for its 
 success and prosperity rests upon its own intelligent 
 ability to adjust such differences. If arbitration is too 
 easily accessible it may defeat the very end desired. 
 
 To illustrate, let us suppose there is either 
 an understanding between disputants at a certain 
 industrial plant to the effect that all parties 
 shall continue at work pending an investigation of 
 differences and disputes and of a decision by a board 
 of arbitration agreed upon to adjust these differences 
 or disputes, or there is not such an understanding. If 
 such an understanding exists, the failure to reach a 
 decision may seriously injure the laborer; while on 
 the other hand, if there be no understanding, there 
 is danger that the industry involved may be made 
 idle indefinitely, to the serious or disastrous injury of 
 the owners, and the injury of either is unquestionably 
 the injury of both. 
 
 ENCOURAGE SELF=RELIANCE. 
 
 There is a further and a better reason for deferring 
 arbitration until all other means of adjustment are 
 exhausted. In my opinion, differences and disputes 
 sliould l)e settled as near their source as possible, and 
 with the least possible delay. Introducing a third party 
 often complicates and seriously delays a settlement. 
 
 7 
 
Weakness, vanity, error, like threads inharmonious in 
 eolor woven in a fabrie, run through our whole human 
 nature from the most exalted to the most humble. 
 All alike shrink from the exposure of personal weak- 
 ness, error of judgment, or wrong-doing. All alike, 
 whether base or noble, want to share in the final and 
 wise adjustment. It is well, therefore, that arbitration 
 is not- only so remote from us as to keep us from temp- 
 tation, but so diffieult of aeeess that all parties in 
 interest will feel they must try to work out their own 
 salvation without it. Thus arbitration will be dignified 
 and respeeted and its deerees when rendered will be 
 trusted and obeyed. 
 
 To build up in our people the spirit of self-relianee is 
 essential. Break down eonfidence in self, or lessen the 
 conseiousness of our responsibility to ourselves and to 
 our fellows, and we beeome a race of weaklings, 
 shirks and demagogues, and the very institutions 
 formed to prevent trouble become nurseries where 
 trouble is fomented and demagogues and time-servers 
 are created. If arbitration is made so easy that em- 
 ployer or employe can resort to it upon any pretext, then 
 the result will be that wherever it is believed any 
 advantage can be obtained by one side or the other, 
 the responsibility of settling questions in dispute will 
 never be assumed, as it should be, by those immediately 
 in authority or interest. Thus arbitration will, in the 
 very nature of things, soon be in bad repute. No 
 dignified plan of arbitration will ever be successful 
 until all- wise and honorable means have been exhausted 
 in devising a simpler, quicker -and equally fair method 
 of settling the vast majority of such disputes as arise 
 from day to day. 
 
 8 
 
\ 
 
 UNEQUAL CHANCES. 
 
 'J'lie jjropositioii to arbitrate under any and all con- 
 ditions is not unlike the proposition ol.' a “New 
 Englander,” who, having been engaged in a game of 
 poker with a Kentuckian and having lost, suggested 
 that his money be returned to him and that a fresh 
 start in a new game be niade. 
 
 “No,” replied the Kentuckian, “I have your money 
 and the game is ended.” 
 
 There is no more reason why under all circumstances • 
 the proposition to arbitrate should be agreed to than 
 there was reason for the Kentuckian to return the 
 money he had won in order that the unfortunate New 
 Englander might renew the play. 
 
 Another story suggests itself which will further illus- 
 trate the absurdity of most proposals to arbitrate. In 
 the wilds of the far West an Illinoisan and a Kentuckian 
 met; the former had a deck of cards and the latter 
 a bottle of “Bourbon.” The Illinoisan proposed a 
 game to the Kentuckian to determine who should pos- 
 sess the bottle. “No,” said the Kentuckian, “the 
 bottle is mine now, and much as I love the game, I do 
 not play it and play fool at the same time, but to show 
 my friendliness we will share the contents of the bottle 
 as long as it lasts.”. Here was practical common sense, 
 and. the spirit of conciliation. 
 
 Thus we see that no one wishes to submit to arbi- 
 tration where all the chances favor a rival and where 
 those who have something to lose have nothing 
 wliatever to gain. The man, whether employer or 
 employe, who has everything to gain and nothing to 
 lose by arbitration always favors it. Could anything 
 be plainer? 
 
 0 
 
THE ANTHRACITE STRIKE. 
 
 Lei tis consider a serious dis[)ule, (fesli in the [)ul)lie 
 mind, to illustrate the unreasonableness of the propo- 
 sition to arbitrate it. 
 
 The strike in the anthracite coal field in Pennsyl- 
 vania was preceded by a proposition made by Mr. 
 John Mitchell, President of the United Mine Workers 
 of America, on behalf of the miners, to the ope- 
 rators in the anthracite coal fields of Pennsylvania. 
 President • Mitchell proposed for consideration of a 
 board of arbitration four questions or points in dispute 
 between miners and operators. These 'were, let us say: 
 
 1st. An advance in wages. 
 
 2nd. Reduction in the hours of labor from ten to 
 eight hours per day. 
 
 3rd. Paying for actual weight of coal instead of by 
 the car,. 
 
 4th. Recognition of the union. 
 
 The anthracite coal mine operators declined to 
 arbitrate. However much they may otherwise deserve 
 censure, admitting for the sake of argument that censure 
 is deserved, — they not only acted properly in refusing 
 to arbitrate, but they did exactly what Mr. Mitchell and 
 the miners’ organization would have done if the con- 
 verse of the miners’ proposition had been submitted 
 to them. 
 
 Let us suppose the following proposition as com- 
 ing from the operators and submitted to. the miners : 
 
 1st. A reduction of wages. 
 
 2nd. Increase in the hours of labor from ten to 
 twelve hours. 
 
 3rd. Enlargement of coal cars now used. 
 
 4th. Refusal to employ any miners who are mem- 
 bers of the United Mine Workers of America. 
 
 10 
 
Wliat reply would Mr. Mitchell have made? Mr. 
 iAfitchel] would liave said — “it is absurd.” Why? Be- 
 cause, as a result, no jjossible benefit could accrue to 
 the miners. That would be a correct answer. The 
 anthracite operators declined for the same reason, since 
 they could not possibly gain anything by arbitration, 
 and they might lose much. The fact is, Mr. Mitchell, 
 who is a very able and a far-seeing man and as 
 scrupulously honest as he is able, could never have 
 expected the anthracite operators to accept his prop- 
 ' osition; but he had a right to make such a proposition 
 and he had a reasonable right also to believe that 
 the anthracite operators might offer a counter prop- 
 osition, or at least make some reply less cold, more 
 conciliatory, less defiant, than the now famous reply 
 couched in the undiplomatic language — “We have 
 nothing to arbitrate.” 
 
 A TRAGIC MISTAKE. 
 
 . This citation is not made in criticism of either Mr. 
 Mitchell, or of the anthracite miners, or of the anthracite 
 operators, nor do I mean to express an opinion on 
 the merits of the dispute. 
 
 The anthracite operators are total strangers to me, 
 and therefore I could not be for or against them on 
 •personal grounds. I do know Mr. Mitchell, and my 
 confidence is so strpng in his ability, in his disinterested 
 devotion to the cause of the laborer, in his love of 
 truth and justice, that I wish with all my heart th^se 
 anthracite operators, who are painted as black as dark- 
 est night, would take him into their confidence, just 
 to show the world that the so-called “cruel coal 
 l)aron” and the “walking delegate” are not^ so far 
 
 11 
 
apart and not so unlike, but like the rest of us, are 
 full of luiman weaknesses and yet stamped with God’s 
 likeness. 
 
 it is not, I say, my purpose to criticize either Mr. 
 Mitchell or the anthracite coal operators. I* only wish to 
 make clear my opposition to indiscriminate arbitration, 
 as seems to be universally urged in the present instance, 
 and to any ill-considered reply to such a request as 
 Mr. Mitchell’s; for, after all, he was simply exercising 
 the right of petition on behalf of 150,000 miners. 
 
 I have merely sought in mentioning these incidents, 
 to demonstrate how a short answer will have the opposite 
 effect of a soft answer, and to show how far from the 
 truth are those who think that arbitration is always a 
 fair and simple thing, as well as to point out what trage- 
 dies may follow from seemingly unimportant mistakes. 
 
 Under existing conditions I do not know that the 
 strike in the anthracite field could have been averted, 
 but I do believe that it has been prolonged by an utter 
 absence of tact on the part of the operators and by the in- 
 termeddling of well-meaning parties who have considered 
 themselves specially qualified to adjust the dispute. 
 
 Political intrigue and interference have not helped 
 in the present instance, nor will a wise precedent be 
 established for the future, should the present strike be 
 terminated through such an agency. 
 
 WHAT MIGHT ENSUE. 
 
 The most persistent advocate’s of indiscriminate 
 arbitration are generally of the class who know least 
 about the danger of arbitration, for the reason that 
 
 12 
 
the proposition to arbitrate is seldom carried home to 
 them. Those wlio liave most to say nj)on tlie subject, 
 among the class of our citizens wlio are at the same 
 time the most intelligent, arc notably our clergymen, 
 our lawyers and our editors. Some of the difficulties 
 of arbitration, as they appear to others, might be car- 
 ried home to them. 
 
 Let us say, for example, there is a dis- 
 pute as to what salary a certain widely-known, 
 distinguished city clergyman should be paid, and to 
 settle the controversy it is submitted to a board of 
 arbitration. Again, here is the question of the fee of 
 a prominent city lawyer in dispute; this also is to be 
 submitted to arbitration. Here is an editor, or news- 
 paper publisher, the subscription price of whose paper 
 is in dispute. All of these — the representatives of the 
 learned professions — have acquired the habit of saying 
 that honest and intelligent arbiters will untangle the 
 knottiest proposition. Suppose the city clergyman’s 
 salary is to be decided by a board of arbitration, and 
 it is submitted to one composed of rural preachers, 
 who are admitted to be honest and intelligent men. 
 The salary of the famous city clergyman would in all 
 probability assume sorry proportions. 
 
 Then, again, let a board of arbitration, made up of 
 fair and honest country lawyers, pass upon the fee of a 
 city lawyer. Does anyone wonder what the result 
 would be? 
 
 Here is the publisher of a newspaper in a town of 
 50,000, and the public complains at the obligation to 
 pay five cents per copy for a’local paper. The question 
 of the subscription price of the paper is submitted to 
 arbitration and the board is made up of newspaper 
 
 13 
 
readers of a large city. Tf they render a decision based 
 upon the ordinary rules, what will be the result? They 
 will decide that the rural pa])er is worth certainly no 
 more than the great newspapers published in New 
 York and Chicago or Philadelphia and Boston. 
 
 In the coal mining industry of Illinois, arbitration 
 by outsiders would be well-nigh impossible, whether 
 the interests of employers or employes are to be con- 
 sidered. Why? Because in the coal industry of Illinois 
 certain fixed or accepted principles of political economy 
 were thrown overboard long ago. It is no longer a 
 question of the survival of the fittest — a question of 
 natural conditions — a question of the earning capacity 
 of the workmen. It is the competitive conditions 
 which must be taken into consideration in order to 
 determine the scale of wages for mining coal; it is a 
 question of giving or of dividing work in mines and 
 among miners in the different coal fields of the state. 
 Arbiters not throroughly familiar with all the details 
 of coal mining or with the peculiar conditions of the 
 coal mining industry in Illinois might succeed in either 
 arbitrating some of the operators out of business, or 
 in arbitrating a large number of deserving workmen 
 out of employment, because most men not in the in- 
 dustry itself would be governed by the general laws of 
 trade or of political economy. Is it surprising, there- 
 fore, that corporations’ representing great industrial 
 interests, or labor organizations representing the sacred 
 and vital interests of laborers, hesitate to arbitrate, 
 and especially to arbitrate through an alien body? 
 
 14 
 
JOINT AGREEMENTS. 
 
 The eoal miners, and coal mine operators eame 
 together in 1898 and adopted what is known in the 
 bituminous coal fields of the central states as the sys- 
 tem of “joint agreements,” or what is called in the schools 
 of economics, a system of “joint bargaining.” While, 
 perhaps, only minimum good of it has thus far been 
 realized by its founders, s till it seems to me the most 
 practical and equita ble s ystem ever d^sed, because 
 it not only recognizes the contract relations of em- 
 ployer and employe, and it sometimes provides a way 
 of adjusting differences and disputes arising between 
 them and under the agreements, within the industry 
 itself, but it points the way for others who have known 
 the maximum of discord, the way to industrial peace, 
 when capital is once generally organized, as it must 
 and is certain to organize in the near future. 
 Thus home disputes are kept at home and the 
 soiled family linen is not laundered where a curious 
 public will gaze at it, comment and make mis- 
 chief. Strange as it may seem, even in the coal mining 
 industry of the bituminous fields where coal miners and 
 operators are on easy terms,- there is still some reluct- 
 ance, if not suspicion, regarding what might be desig- 
 nated “Arbitration,” and that, too, as applied and regu- 
 lated within the industry itself. As showing this to be 
 true, here is one of a series of important resolutions 
 proposed at the Interstate Convention of coal miners 
 and coal mine operators held at Indianapolis in Febru- 
 ary, 1902: 
 
 . “Confidently believing the system of the joint agree- 
 ments, under a joint movement of employers and em- 
 ployes, to be a wise and safe system if honestly and faith- 
 
fully adhered to, and- to perpetuate and perfect that 
 system, if possil)le, in the coal mining industry repre- 
 senting the bituminous coal mining industry in this 
 Interstate Convention, declare ounselves ready to pro- 
 vide for the settlement of disputes or differences arising 
 under our interstate agreements by the formation of a 
 board of referees to which such differences or disputes 
 may be carried, in an extremity, for final adjustment.” 
 
 The remaining resolutions of the series were adopted 
 unanimously, but the one above quoted was opposed 
 and voted down by the miners of the four states and 
 the operators of three states represented in the joint 
 convention. If afraid of themselves, why not afraid 
 of an alien agency? 
 
 WHO IS THE THIRD PARTY? 
 
 When strikes occur and ^ when there is talk of arbi- 
 tration a good deal is said on the subject of a “third 
 party.” Who compose the “third party ?” Are we not 
 every one almost at one and the same time more or 
 less of the first, second and third party? If there is a 
 strike in the office of the publisher, or of the merchant, 
 the parties directly concerned are of the first or second 
 party, while the same parties are of the third party 
 when there is a strike in some other establishment or 
 industry. It is this so - called third party which, 
 when it does not belong to the first or second party at 
 the time, often urges compulsory arbitration. Com- 
 pulsory arbitration should therefore not be demanded 
 unless the first, second and third party are all agreed, 
 after due deliberation, that compulsory arbitration is* 
 not only the best form of arbitration, but that it is 
 absolutely needed and that it can be adopted with 
 
 16 
 
safety under our peculiar form of government, and in 
 our land of varied interests. But to me it seems that 
 we can never agree in this country on compulsory 
 arbitration, though in quasi-public enterprises there are 
 times when it might seem to be desirable. Some law 
 may be needed to prevent “strikes” or “lockouts” 
 where, by reason of these, travel is stopped or rendered 
 hazardous, or where the supply of light and water is 
 shut -off. When such a law, however, is enacted, it 
 must not be left either to the agents of great corpora- 
 tions, to our labor organizations, or to the amateurs 
 now clamoring for it, but it must be drafted by the 
 most experienced, the wisest, the fairest and the most 
 far-seeing students not only of political economy, but 
 of the existing conditions. In the matter of putting 
 such a law on our statute books, let us make haste 
 " slowly. Let us trust to a wise form of -^p.lf- governm ent 
 in such tnnf.fppc: bpi-ng ev olved within all our industrie s 
 i n the proce ss o f industrial evolution, and let us 
 rern^^ ^irselvS"de^^s with all forms of arbitration a nd 
 more with plans for renderi n g arbitration unnecessa ry. 
 
 How many employing firms or companies who now 
 seem to think that compulsory arbitration, or some 
 form of arbitration — such as that which it proposes 
 to force upon a great industry by the power of public 
 opinion — how many of such will stand for it? How 
 many organizations of labor will stand for arbitration 
 that is either forced upon them by reason of some law 
 .upon the statute books, or by reason of the 
 power of an unenlightened and unwise public 
 opinion. 
 
 Both well-informed, exp ert authority on the side 
 of labor and on the side of capital, have pronounced 
 
 17 
 
f orced arh ite ltTOn ^^^ Qr compulsory arbitration useles s, if 
 £ailT]]-p Only that form of arbitration is wise 
 and salutary which, besides being born of our ulti- 
 mate needs, is the result of our ever-growing love for 
 and our ev^r-clearer insight into the principles of 
 justice, divine in their origin and nobly human in 
 their application. 
 
 ORGANIZATION OF THE EMPLOYER CLA55. 
 
 All talk of arbitration or anything akin to it is well- 
 nigh idle, unless we take account of organization — not 
 only as applied to employe, but organization as applied 
 to employer. Whether we oppose it or favor it, organ- 
 ized labor has come to stay, and it must therefore be 
 considered because we must deal with it. The em- 
 ployer class must organize to a point of excellence and 
 efficiency wffiere organized labor will respect it. . . 
 
 / am convinced that only by organization can common 
 labor get the maximum wages for its hire. I am equally well 
 eonvinced that only through organization of the employer 
 class will capital obtain from organized labor the most 
 and the best service in return for the wages paid. 
 
 It is my belief that all great departments of industry 
 must have their departments of labor if serious friction 
 is to be avoided, and if the dividends of capital and 
 the wages of labor are to be fairly and wisely adjusted. 
 When we pause to reflect, is it not remarkable that all 
 the departments of great business enterprises have 
 their specially appointed heads to direct and to mdnage, 
 with the exception of the department of labor? This 
 is allowed to get along as best it can, and yet what 
 department of any great business enterprise is of equal 
 importance? This seems the more inexplicable and. 
 
 18 
 
indefensible in view of the fact that when we reduce 
 the whole problem of business competition to concrete 
 form there are only two propositions after all with 
 which the business man has to deal: the price of labor 
 and the rate of interest. 
 
 When we stop to consider this question reduced to 
 its extremity it is not surprising that in the past and 
 before labor was organized the breach between the em- 
 ployer and the employe became serious. Labor in the 
 past has made its sacrifices when times became hard and 
 when competition was sharp and ruinous, so it was 
 fair labor should have shared in the benefits of what- 
 ever prosperity the country at large enjoyed. The law 
 of supply and demand as applied to the human com- 
 modity is revolting to me, and that this law has been 
 too rigorously applied in the past will go far to explain 
 the wide breach between capital and labor. 
 
 Though we must submit to the application of the 
 law of supply and demand, it must not be with an 
 utter disregard of the rights, feelings and well being 
 of our fellow man. 
 
 With the organization of labor this evil has been 
 greatly mitigated and a new problem has arisen, easy 
 enough to temporarily solve in prosperous times like 
 the present period, but what may we expect when 
 reverses come and a reduction in wages* may seem 
 necessary? Many vital questions will arise calling for 
 something more than passing attention. To arrange 
 an equitable basis for determining such matters must, 
 therefore, be the work of some one, not only specially 
 appointed, ‘ l)ut specially qualified; and what is true 
 of one industry is true of all industries collectively. 
 All of these industries collectively must have their 
 
 19 
 
force of specialists, who are experts in this department 
 of science, to whom should be committed all those 
 questions affecting capital in its relations to labor. 
 
 GOOD SAMARITAN NEEDED. 
 
 In no age of the world has the labor problem seemed 
 either more complicated or more important, and in 
 solving it we must look to experts or speeialists — to 
 wise, strong, fair men who will conseerate their lives 
 and dedicate their talents to its proper solution. It 
 is a great, vast, intricate problem, and it is not enough, 
 therefore, that we have “good Samaritans,’' wise phi- 
 lanthropists, kind and generous men and women in 
 large centers of population helping to solve it, but 
 what we need is more such lives as these, consecrated 
 to humanity in the lowly walks of life and in out-of- 
 the-way plaees. All of the world’s suffering, discord, 
 want and ignorance is not confined to the larger cities, 
 for in the smaller manufaeturing towns, and particu- 
 larly in the mining camps, may be found a class of 
 citizens who are both needy and deserving, and who 
 by accident of birth must tread the wine-press alone. 
 These, if benefited, would give back with wholesome 
 interest. 
 
 The youth in these localities should appeal to those 
 who seek to make the world wiser and better, and it 
 is plainly the duty of true philanthropy to provide 
 every means for the development of the heart 
 and mind and brawn of youth. 
 
 In obscure neighborhoods opportunities for growth 
 are sadly limited, nor can they be created when the 
 material of whieh opportunities are made does not 
 exist. The harvest is great in sueh sections, but the 
 
 20 
 
laborers are few, and wise and generous men must 
 either provide advantages or earry the youth into an 
 atmosphere where his mental, moral and physical na- 
 ture may escape the sickening Idiglit of unwholesome 
 environment. 
 
 SEEING OUR DUTY CLEARLY. 
 
 An occasion like the present confers upon society 
 only the minimum of good unless the lessons here 
 learned and the resolutions here formed are religiously 
 enforced day by day. It is altogether too true that 
 as citizens, though declaring our devotion to our 
 country, we give to it our last instead of our first 
 thoughts and we proffer it with reluctance, a few spare 
 moments, where hours of undivided service and thought 
 are demanded if we mean to discharge our simple 
 civic obligations. Let us once learn to discharge these 
 obligations and herein will lie the golden use of arbi- 
 tration, while its abuse will become as rare as the 
 need of its proper enforcement. Let those who have 
 heard me to-day remember that while admitting the 
 abuses of arbitration, I have not denied its proper use. 
 
 Let us arise to the needs of our times and remove 
 the dangers by which we are threatened. Let us 
 apply to all public questions, but more particularly to 
 that most vital question affecting the relations of 
 capital and labor, our well-earned national virtue — 
 common sense, and the boasted quality of our race — the 
 spirit of fair play. 
 
 “Let us cleanse 
 
 The hearts that beat within us; let us now 
 Clean to the roots our falseness and our pretense. 
 Tread down our rank ambitions, overthrow 
 Our braggart moods of puffed self-consequence. 
 Plow up our hideous thistles which do grow 
 Faster than maize in May time, and strike dead 
 The base infections our low greeds have bred.” 
 
 21 
 
I