THE WAGE-CONTRACT AND PERSONAL LIBERTY. 651 



to conduct it as they see fit, without the State's interference. This 

 is true to a great extent. For instance, the employer may decide 

 what business he will adopt, where he will transact it, what goods 

 he will manufacture, when and where and at what prices he will 

 offer them for sale, what persons he will employ, and in many 

 other ways act on his own judgment, uncontrolled "by the State or 

 the general public. But when disputes, strikes, and lockouts arise, 

 it is only right that the State should require him to submit the 

 matter to some superior power for determination and settlement. 

 If the public has sufficient interest in a dispute between A and B 

 respecting the ownership of an acre of land, or the liability of B 

 to A for a pair of shoes, to justify the State in compelling them 

 to submit to the decision of a court, it is extremely difficult to 

 understand why the public has not sufficient interest in labor dis- 

 putes, which frequently entail loss and suffering upon thousands 

 of the public as well as upon the immediate parties to the dispute, 

 to justify the State in requiring the parties to submit to the de- 

 cision of a State tribunal. 



Within the past ten or twelve years the principle of arbitra- 

 tion as a means of settling labor disputes has made considerable 

 progress. The States of Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, 

 Pennsylvania, Maryland, Missouri, and Montana have all estab- 

 lished Boards of Arbitration. The new State of "Wyoming has 

 provided in its Constitution for the creation of such a board. By 

 the act of October 1, 1888, Congress legalized a Board of Arbitra- 

 tion, to consist of three members, one to be chosen by each side 

 and the third by the other two, with power to adjust differences 

 between interstate railroads and their employe's. Under these 

 various boards some good results have been attained, some labor 

 disputes have been settled, and some strikes and lockouts have 

 been prevented. But the practical value and utility of these 

 boards have been largely impaired by the provision in the law of 

 their organization requiring both employer and employed to agree 

 to submit the matter to the board, and also by the failure of the 

 law to confer any power upon the board to enforce its decision or 

 orders. In other words, under existing laws, these boards have 

 jurisdiction only when both sides are willing, and even after the 

 board has rendered a decision, the unsuccessful party may disobey 

 its orders with impunity, as the board has no power to fine or im- 

 prison for disobedience. The result is that the board only acts in 

 the small number of cases in which both sides believe themselves 

 right, and never acts in the more numerous and important cases 

 in which one side is conscious of the injustice of its demands. 

 The board's decision has merely a moral but no legal force. The 

 law should be amended in these respects so as to give the board 

 jurisdiction upon the request of a certain number of either side, 



