state boards of mediation, conciliation, or arbitration in this period probably accounts in a measure for the fact that the smaller disputes did not become aggravated into interstate proportions.

The Pullman strike of 1894 saved the law from being entirely barren of results. Several writers, among them the former Commissioner of Labor, Dr. Charles P. Neill, have maintained that even this solitary application of the act was futile in so far as the settlement of the dispute was concerned, since the employees had already lost the strike a week or more prior to the appointment of the strike commission by the President." On the other hand, the Chairman of the House Committee on Labor stated in 1898" that a cessation of the strike had been brought about by the leaders of the labor organizations involved in the dispute upon being assured by the President of the United States that he would appoint an arbitration commission under Section 6 of the Act of 1888.

Whatever significance may be attached to the appointment of the commission as a means for settlement of the Chicago strike, the direct connection between it and the enactment of the arbitration law of 1898 cannot be disputed. On July 26, 1894, President Cleveland appointed two commissioners to act with the Commissioner of Labor as a body of inquiry, as provided in Section 6 of the arbitration act. The report of the commission submitted to the President, November 14, 1894," contained the testimony given by the witnesses, a report of the commission with its recommendations to Congress, and a summary of remedies and methods for settling industrial disputes suggested in communications received by the commission. In the recommendations to Congress, there was urged the creation of a permanent tribunal which was to be prepared always to deal with railroad disputes. In support of this suggestion, attention was called to the fact that "in the long contest between the public and the railroads penal and specific legislation proved inadequate "" and a permanent administrative body was finally established to prohibit unreasonable and unjust rates and

99 46

"Neill, Mediation and arbitration of railway labor disputes in the United States, Bureau of Labor, Bulletin 98, p. 28.

44

45

Congressional Record, vol. 173, p. 4801.

Report on the Chicago Strike of June-July 1894, by the U. S. Strike Commission, 1895. Sessions were held in Chicago for thirteen days, August 15 to 30, with a subsequent session in Washington on September 26.

46

Ibid., XLIX.

to prevent discriminations and unfair practices. It was, therefore, suggested that the strike tribunal, whose creation was recommended by the commission, should have powers and duties of investigation and recommendation in disputes between carriers in interstate commerce and their employees similar to those with respect to rates, unfair practices, etc., held by the Interstate Commerce Commission. In order that the decisions of such a tribunal might not go for naught, it was recommended that the United States courts be given power to compel railroads to obey the strike commission's decisions. The commission recommended further that the tribunal should be granted power to intervene upon its own motion as well as upon request of parties in a dispute and that conciliation should be the first aim, but that failing, investigation should be made to fix responsibility and a report published to guide public sentiment. To provide for uninterrupted transportation facilities during the controversy, it was urged that during the proceedings before the strike commission, strikes or lockouts should be made illegal, and it was recommended further that for six months after a decision was rendered it should be unlawful for the railroad to discharge workmen in whose places others were to be employed, except for inefficiency, violation of law, or neglect of duty, while on the other hand employees should be prohibited from quitting the service without thirty days' notice, and that unions should be prohibited from ordering or counseling otherwise.

Erdman Act, 1898. Only a few days after the report of the Chicago Commission had been presented to Congress," a bill was introduced in the House for an act to replace the law of 1888, drafted by two members of the Commission at the request of the House Committee on Labor." In the sessions of Congress for the three subsequent years, this or a similar bill was laid before Congress, but not until 1898 was the so-called Erdman Law enacted. To some extent the delay in enacting arbitration legislation was due to the crowding of other matters, but much was due to the opposition of the labor organizations-not the railroad brother

47 The report was laid before Congress by the President on December 10, 1894.

49 Hatch, in Bulletin 60, as above, p. 574.

hoods, to whom alone the law applied, but the other unions—who felt that the power granted the courts of equity to enforce the decisions of the boards of arbitration was too vague and general and might lead to the exercise of an oppressive judicial power neither foreseen nor desired by the advocates of the bill." It was feared that the bill might turn out to be an " entering wedge" for a system of compulsory arbitration, which labor representatives in the United States have persistently and emphatically opposed to this day. Accordingly, there is here to be observed the anomalous spectacle of the five railroad brotherhoods pressing to adoption a law, the provisions of which were applicable to them alone, against the strong objection of other labor bodies of the country to whom the act did not apply.

50

The Erdman Act" was like its predecessor in that it provided for both arbitration and mediation, but it differed in that authoritative investigation of disputes was not included. In jurisdiction the new law was more restricted in scope, since it was applicable only to those classes of employees engaged in actual train service instead of to any class of employees whose dispute with a transportation company might "hinder, impede, obstruct, interrupt, or affect" interstate transportation of persons or property.

In regard to conciliation, it was provided (Section 2) that in case of a dispute which seriously interrupted or threatened to interrupt seriously the business of a railroad, the Chairman of the Interstate Commerce Commission and the Commissioner of Labor, upon request of either party, should promptly endeavor to settle the controversy by mediation and conciliation, and if such efforts were unavailing, to endeavor to secure an arbitration as provided in the law. Thus, instead of a temporary body for each dispute as provided for in the act of 1888, a permanent agency was established, but without power of intervention independent of the parties to a dispute.

As to arbitration, important changes were made, particularly as to procedure and enforcement. The submission to arbitration

"Neill, in Bulletin 98, as above, p. 28.

60 See statement of A. B. Garretson, president of the Order of Railway Conductors, in the Hearings before the Senate Committee on Interstate Commerce, June 20, 1913, p. 34.

51 For a detailed analysis of the law and its operation, see Hatch, as above, p. 575, and Neill, as above, p. 3 et seq.

remained voluntary, and could occur only with agreement of both parties. Provision was made, however, for appointment of the third arbitrator by the Chairman of the Interstate Commerce Commission and the Commission of Labor in the event of disagreement of the first two. The requirement that arbitrators be wholly impartial and disinterested in respect to the controversy was eliminated. Parties in arbitration were required to bind themselves under pain of liability for damages to refrain from strike or lockout during the arbitration. Employees agreed, if dissatisfied with an award, not to leave the employers' service without giving thirty days' notice in writing, while employers agreed not to discharge employees without similar notification. The award of the arbitration board was made operative as soon as filed in the clerk's office of the United States circuit court, and judgment was to be entered accordingly within ten days, during which time either party to the controversy could file exceptions preparatory to appeal but only for errors of law apparent on the record.

Several provisions of the act revealed the desire to recognize and encourage organization of railroad employees as instruments of industrial peace, as recommended by the Chicago Commission. It was provided that in every incorporation of a national trade union under national law the articles of incorporation, constitution, rules and by-laws of the union must provide for automatic expulsion of members who participate in or instigate violence during industrial strife. Members of such organizations, however, were relieved of personal responsibility for acts, debts, or obligations of the organization, which, in turn, was not to be held liable for illegal acts of members. It was made a misdemeanor for railroads subject to the act to require employees to agree not to join a labor organization, or to discriminate against or threaten them for membership in such a union. In an effort to prevent the exploitation of labor by railroads which were in control of receivers appointed by United States courts, the law granted the right of employees of such railroads to be heard by the courts upon all questions affecting the terms and conditions of their employment. Such receiver was prohibited from reducing wages without authority of the court given after due notice to the employees.

With three exceptions the law thus embodied the important recommendations of the Chicago Strike Commission. The exceptions were as follows:

1. Lack of provision for governmental investigation as to causes of disputes and publication of reports thereon.

2. Omission of provision for independent initiative by a governmental agency for purposes of conciliation in railroad disputes.

3. Failure to establish a permanent body with powers over rates of wages, hours, and working conditions similar to those of the Interstate Commerce Commission over railroad rates, unfair practices, etc.

The Erdman Act was clearly premature at the time of its enactment. It was predicated upon an advanced state of opinion with respect to collective bargaining which was as yet practically nonexistent. The first attempt to utilize the law, made within a year after its enactment, not only resulted in a total failure but even in repudiation of the principle of the law by the chief railroad companies involved in the dispute. Only a brief summary can be given here."2

After several months of fruitless endeavor to settle a dispute over wages and changes in working conditions for conductors and trainmen in the switching service of the Pittsburgh district, the chief of the national organization of trainmen, in conjunction with executives of other organizations whose members might become involved in any difficulty arising from the dispute, determined to test the effectiveness of the act of 1898. The attention of the federal mediators designated in the law, the Chairman of the Interstate Commerce Commission and the Commissioner of Labor, was directed to the circumstances of the dispute. The mediators wrote to the proper officers of each of the thirteen railroads involved in the controversy, but after lengthy correspondence the presidents of the roads declined the proffer of the mediators' aid on the ground that

The question of what compensation shall be paid to its employees is of such grave importance that the officers of -Railroad do not feel that they can in any manner relinquish their duty and

"A full account of this first experience with the act is given in Bulletin 98 of the Bureau of Labor, p. 29 et seq.