lEumttr fit.ilulnt. No. The Strike Commission's Report The Strike Commission's Report. The report of the commission appointed to investigate the great strike at Chicago is one of the most remarkable documents ever issued under the authoiit3^ of the national government. This is perhaps the first instance in the history of our government where a quasi judicial body, acting under a federal commission, has abused its powers in order to castigate corporate bodies, while purporting to conduct an impartial investigation for the public welfare. It is extremely unfor- tunate that the members of the commission should become so lost to a sense of honor or dignity as to use their official position as a vehicle to exploit their personal prejudices. The report of the commission is remarkable for its reckless disre- gard of plain facts, or of the legitimate inferences dcducible from the evidence elicited at the hearing. This report fairly bristles with wicked innuendoes and statements which are not supported by the facts. It savors of blantant demagoguery rather than wisdom, of servile parti- sanship rather than fairness. It discloses the lack of an intelligent comprehension of the social and economic questions involved in this great controversy. It is utterly devoid of that calm and impartial deliberation and judicial spirit which characterises the efforts of a syn- thetical and high minded court of inquiry. It betrays the radical and intemperate zeal of the advocate than the rigid and impartial scrutiny of the judge. It is painful to observe that the strike commission labored under the blighting influences of a deep rooted bias when upon the very threshold of its work. This is evident to even the most casual obser- ver. First. It is incomprehensible that the commission should make the contemptible insinuation, at page 18, that the Pullman company employed a physician with an ostensible philanthropic purpose, but in reality to wring from helpless and tortured victims of an accident, a settlement on terms most favorable to the company. It seems incredi- ble that the commission should hint broadly, at page 25, that the Gen- eral Managers Association, composed of concededly honorable men, had formed a combination and entered into an unhallowed alliance, and raised a corruption fund, in order to overreach their employes. The General Managers are shrewd and experienced men, and it is a base reflection upon their intelligence, to say the least, to allege that they conspired against the rights of their operatives, when they knew full well, from long practical experience, that the prime factor of suc- cess in railway enterprises is an harmonious co-operation between the managers and the employes,— because the latter are scattered all over the lines, and thus escape the personal supervision of their superiors. Third. It is a sad commentary upon the intelligence of the commis- sioners, and the acquaintance with the practical affairs of railway cor- porations, to find them drawing conclusions that the General Mana- gers' Association was formed for the purpose of fighting strikes and arbitrating wage questions. Most people of average intelligence hav- ing even the remotest knov^rledge of railway matters have commonly believed that railway managers are obliged, in order to earn from ten to twenty thousand dollars a ,vear, to devote their attention to more serious matters than strike and wage questions. These instances of a strong bias, and lack of practical knowledge of the questions raised by the strike, rendered the commission wholly unfit to perform the diffi- cult, not to say delicate, duty entrusted to them. And their report is the most conclusive evidence of this. The report clearly reflects the perverted minds of the commissioners. It is a most eloquent tribute to their deficiency of practical judgment, or sense of justice and equity. Examining in order the leading questions involved in this great controversy. First. The refusal of the General Managers Association to arbi- trate with the American Railway Union was right, and their position impregnable. The facts disclosed clearly prove this. And the commis- sion virtually admits it. There were absolutely no questions submit- ted by the .\. R. U. which were legitimate subjects for arbitration as between the A. R. U. and the General Managers Association, nothing which could set in motion a court of arbritation, no relief demanded which would have been binding, legally or morally, upon the parties to the controversy. An arbitration is but another form of an action at law. The General Managers Association was not a party to the con- troversy between the Pullman company and its employes; the Pullman employes were not railway men. Hence, as between the American Rail- way Union and the General Managers Association there could be no proper joinder of parties, or issues, — and, consequently, no decision equally binding upon both of these organizations. The onlj' issue be- tween the American Railway Union and the General Managers Asso- ciation was this: The former ordered a strike of railway emploj^es simply because the latter refused the arbitary and utterly unreasona- ble demands to sidetrack the Pullman cars, and thus involve the rail- roads in legal complications with the Pullman compan3', and perhaps the State, — not to speak of the prostration of railway traffic. Let us see how the commission deals with this subject. At page 23 of their report, the\" say: "To admit the Pullman shop employes into the American Railway Union as 'persons employed in railway service' was not wise or expedient," under the constitution of the organization. "Such loose construction of a labor constitution is certain to involve any organization in such an infinite variety of conflicting positions, and to force it into many contests demanding different and perhaps apparently inconsistent treatment." And this was precisely what occurred. " To reach out and take in those so alien toitsnatural mem- bership as the Pullman employes, was. in the inception of the organi- zation at least, a mistake. This mistake led the union into a strike purely sympathetic, and aided to bring upon it a crushing and demor- alizing defeat." Thus, by its own showing, the commission admits that the A. R. U. did not approach the General Managers Association as plaintiffs seeking an arbitration of specific issues or grievances of their own, but simply as champions of the Pullman employes whom the commission says were not eligible to membership in that organiza- tion, under its constitution, and were "alien to its natural member- ship." It follows, then, by a plain construction of the decision ren- dered by the commission, that the Pullman employes were not lawful members of the A. R. U., and consequently not entitled to invoke its intervention in their contest with the Pullman company. It is clear that the Pullman employes joined the A. R. U. in order to secure the aid of that organization in fightingthePullmancorapany,— or, to whip the devil around the stump. The commission savs it was " the exag- gerated idea of the power of the union (A. R. U.) which induced the workmen at Pullman to join the order," and "led to their striking against this advice."— of the A. R. U. "Having struck," the commis- sion says (page 24), "the union could do nothing less, upon the theory at its base, than support them,"— the Pullman employes. At page 36, it appears that the union voted that the members should stop hand- ling Pullman cars unless the Pullman company would consent to arbi- tration. The A. R. U. occupied two wholly inconsistent positions: It was trying to force the Pullman company to arbitrate, and to compel the railways to aid in this effort, and because the latter refused, the A. R. U. decided that this was a question for arbitration, i. e., the refusal of the railways to assist in bringing the Pullman compan3' to terms, by refusing to haul Pullman cars. This is the exact logic of the situa- tion, and it betrays the fatal weakness of the position taken b\' the A. R. U. Continuing, the commission says, at page 36, "The strike on the part of the railroad employes was a sympathetic one No grievan- ces against the railroads had been presented by their employes, nor did the American Railway Union declare any such grievances to be any cause whatever of the strike. To simply boycott the Pullman cars would have been an incongruous step for the remedy of complaints of railroad employes. Throughout the strike the strife was simplj^ over handling Pullman cars, the men being ready to do their duty other- wise." By plain and unequivocal statements, often repeated, the com- mission admits that the American Railway Union had nothing what- ever to submit for arbitration to the General Managers Association. Even if the General Managers Association was formed, as the commis- sion insinuates, as a " strike fighter," it is evident that the commission itself felt that there was nothing to arbitrate as between this organi- zation and the A. R. U., since the only question at issue between these associations was the hauling of Pullman cars. In view of the relations between the General Managers Association and the A. R. U., and of the admissions made by the commission, it is difficult to understand why the commission should assert at page 28, that "The refusal of the General Managers Association to recognize and deal with such a combination of labor as the American Railway Union seems arrogant and absurd." Had the A. R. U. come before the General Managers Association with specific grievances of their own growing out of their relation with the railways represented by this association, the case v^ould have been entirely different. But when the A. R. U. tried to dictate terms to the railways, on behalf of men whom the commission expressly declares were not railway men, and ineligible to membership in the A. R. U. and "alien to its natural membership," the association was fully justified in refusing to deal with the union in any manner whatsoever. The General Managers Association was formed ostensibly to deal with questions relating to railways of a quasi public character, and matters pertaining to car builders, or pri- vate corporations, was entirely foreign to its objects, and it could not properly entertain jurisdiction in such matters. This phase of the controversy shows a studied and determined pur- pose on the part of the commission to cast opprobrium and reproach upon the General Managers Association. But the eff'ort is a signal fail- ure when viewed in the light of the facts. — and it lays bare the incon- sistency of the commission, the falsity of its statements and conclu- sions. Like Haman, the commission is its own executioner. Second. The statements made at page 36 of the report, that the strike was produced by apprehension of wage reductions, blacklisting, and the growing power of the General Managers Association is entirely speculative, and has absolutely no foundation in fact. When the com- mission takes the position of an advocate, it should confine itself to the facts in the case. The statements show to what straits the commission was reduced to in its efforts to club the GeneralManagers Association, yet in a decorous way. Why were there no strikes, sympathetic or otherwise, during the period of its existence from 188(3, since which time the commission sa3'S its " possibilities as a strike fighter and wage arbiter lay rather dormant." This statement is of itself sufficient to show the base and cowardly motive actuating the minds of the com- missioners. The wholesale attacks, upon the association itself were bad enough, but the attack upon its president, Mr. St. John, is the culmi- nation of malignity on the part ot the commission. Lord Bacon says that "it is the vice of subtle minds to attach undue importance to small things." Nowhere do we find a higher tribute to the wisdom of the great philosopher than in this report. At page 26 we find some brief excerpts from the testimony of Mr. St. John, which, standing alone might be susceptible of a construction unfavorable to the General Managers Association. But the manner in which this evidence is' quoted, and the sly insinuations made in regard to it, are suggestive of a pestiferous pettifogger rather than a commission created to inves- tigate great social and economic ([uestions. The question of wage arbitration was not germane to the inquir3- before the commission, because it was not a cause of the strike,— and so it is not pertinent to this discussion of the controversy. It w^ould seem that a uniforrn scale of wages, fairly adjusted, might properl3' be made by the rail- ways, acting through the General Managers Association, — in order that employes of one road might not ask an advance on the ground that other roads were paxnng such and such wages. The commission indulges in a long, and to them, apparently de- lightful excursion into the realms of speculative philosophy, — when it prognosticates the terrible consequences which might ensue in case all railways entered the alleged unlawful combination. But they evident- ly forgot to add that were all the railway employes in this country to join the 150,000 now said to be included on the rolls of the A. K. U. they might if they accepted the socialistic teaching of this partisan commission get excited some day and rip up all the railways and re- duce the equipment to kindling wood and scrap iron, and hang the members of the General Managers Association to the telegraph poles tound standing. Third. The General Managers Association was not an issue in the controversy which the strike commission was created to investi- gate, and therefore, not a legitimate subject of consideration by that commis.sion. The commission clearh' overstepped the limits of its au- thority in dealing with this association. Prior to, and during the strike, the association was a mere passive factor, standing upon the defensive. It had absolutely nothing to do with the Pullman strike, and was in no wise a party to that contest. Nor was it a cause of that contest. It was not a cause of the railway strike, — unless its re- fusal to sacrifice the rights and interests of the roads it represented, and to submit to the dictation of a committee of irresponsible labor agitators was a cause of the latter strike. Consequently, this associa- tion could not. even by a strained construction of the statutes, be a legitimate subject for consideration by the commission under chapter 1063, section 6, of the laws of the United States, authorizing them to examine " the causes of the controversy." No public complaints were ever made against the association prior to the great strike, nor against its individual members. The commission does not charge the associa- tion with an\' unlawful or improper overt acts, either before or during the strike, but simply alleges that the strike of railway employes was due to the action of the association in regard to wages, and to fear of its growing power and influence. But these charges, like most of those which the commission makes against this association, are unsupported by evidence, and are utterly disproved by the facts and attending cir- cumstances. The General Managers Association was never brought into prominence until its aggressiveness in protecting the proper- ties of the railwa3's represented bv it excited the animosities of the adherents and sympathisers of the strikers. Its aggressiveness and effective effort during the great labor insurrection was not the cause, but the legitimate result of the strike of the railway employes. It was drawn into the controversy in sheer self-defense. It was not a predis- posing cause, but a corrective antidote for the evil which originated at the Pullman works. As the commission says, "its possibilities as a strike fighter — lay rather dormant" until the agents of the A. R. U. " urged on the strike at every available point upon the railroads cen- tering at Chicago until it reached proportions far in excess of their original anticipations, and led to disorders beyond their control." These events aroused the latent energies of the General Managers Asso- ciation, and led to the interposition of its all powerful arm to protect life and property from the assults of armed mobs, resulting, as the com- mission admits, from the strike set in motion by the A. K. U. The in- tervention of the General Managers Association in the great contro- versy was due to the imperative exigencies of the times. From an im- partial consideration of the facts, it is evident that this association instead of being one of the "causes of the controversy " which the com- mission was authorized to investigate, has by the commission, in defi- ance of every principle of justice and equity, been ruthlessly dragged into the controversy and made the scape-goat upon which it is sought by the most willful perversion and strained construction of the facts, to cast the odium of the great insurrection and its disastrous conse- quences. The association as a bugaboo in this controversy is simply the creature of the commissioner's distorted imaginations; it is a mas- ter spirit of evil hatched within the misty recesses of their inner con- sciousness. Obviously the chief function of the General Managers Association is the promotion of harmonious relations between the great railwa3-s centering in Chicago, by the adjustment of matter incident to the inter- change of traffic, and the settlement of questions which might other- wise lead to perplexing complications, ruinous competition, and the obstruction of the broad channels of trade and commerce. If its main object was the fighting of strikes and adjustment of wage schedules, it might as well disloand now, — as those questions may be considered, at least in so far as the roads centering in Chicago are concerned, as set- tled for a generation to come. It must have been evident to at least one member of the commission, that the people have ever been clamor- ing for laws to compel the railroads to grant equal facilities to each other in the interchange of traffic, — and that such questions have been the occasion of some of the bitterest and most stubbornly fought con- tests in many states, and that the intervention of railroad commission- ers, and the courts have ever been invoked in order to compel the rail- roads to adjust their difficulties so as to permit them properly to per- form their public duties. An organization comprising representatives of the twenty-four railroads centering in Chicago, having the avowed purpose of settling questions incident to the interchange of traffic, and the promotion of harmonious co-operations between the various lines, and the adjustment of differences, ought, if controlled bj' practical and public spirited citizens to merit a large measure of public confidence. Its mission is peace, the protection of life and property, the promotion of commerce, and the easy interchange of traffic. Such an association is much like a clearing house association where the affairs of a large number of banks are adjusted, and certain regulations prescribed and enforced for the practical operation of fiscal exchanges, and the promo- tion of commerce. When confronted again with such a formidableinsurrection as that witnessed at Chicago last summer, the corporations singly or in com- bination, will be fully justified in arming forces to protect their proper- ty, in precisely the same manner that individuals may do under like circumstances. Everj' man's house is his castle, and he has a right to protect it by armed force if necessary. Corporations are but an asso- ciation of individuals, who lose none of their individual rights by incor- porating themselves. — and there are no valid reasons why railway or other corporations should not arm to protect their property, whether railway tracks, elevators, or plants, in the same manner as individuals may their homes. In so far as the evidence shows, the General Managers Association at Chicago was formed for purely legitimate purposes germane to the successful operation of railways. Its avowed purpose is a very com- mendable one. It has demonstrated its usefulness as a quasi public body. No event in the history of labor troubles has ever demonstated so well the imperative necessity of such an organization as that wit- nessed in Chicago last July. Never was there an organization of this kind which proved itself so equal to the exigency which confronted it. By unity of action and firmness of purpose, and the exertion of its ready resources and ample power, the General Managers Association effect- ually prevented the wanton destruction of life and property when the strikers had lost control of themselves, and the city was practically at the mercy of ruthless and infuriated mobs. It is a grave question w^hether such an organization at every large railway center might not prove a blessing by protecting property in times of labor uprisings. Certainly the General Managers Association at Chicago has proved itself a powerful conservator of the peace, and protector of life and property, — and it has fully justified its existence as a corrective agent in times of public danger, if nothing more. The report of the strike commission is certainly a public calamity. By a reckless and wanton distortion of the facts, and unjust and mis- leading conclusions, it has surrounded one of the most formidable and dangerous labor insurrections in our history with the cloak of charity, and virtually condoned the terrible offense under the great seal of the federal government. This report will do more to engender discontent and friction between corporations and employes, and to excite and pro- more bitter internecine feuds than any document ever issued under the authority of the national government. If this commission and its efforts as a mediator and conciliator between labor and capital, is but a forecast of v^^hat we may expect from the tribunal recommended by it, we may all well exclaim with the inhabitants of England and France in the Middle Ages, " From the fury of the Northmen, O Lord deliver us." GEORGE A. BENHAM. Chicago, 30 November, 1894. /in>on\tor press Rockford, HI.