Question: Resolved, That there should be a National Board of Arbitration for matters in dispute between employers and employees on inter-state railroads and that this board should be given compulsory powers."

Brief for the Affirmative.

W. F. HODGE and W. B. MOULTON.Best general references: Report of Federal Commission on the Chicago strike; Abstract in Public Opinion, Nov. 22, 1894; C. W. Clarke in Atlantic Monthly, LXVII, 34 (Jan. 1891); Caroll D. Wright in the Forum (Dec. 1894); Lyman Abbot in the Arena VII, 396 (Dec. 1892).

I. Labor disputes on inter-state railroads demand prompt and decisive action. - (a) Large number of employees concerned. - (b) Public interests affected. - (1) Economic importance of railroad. - (c) Legal right of public to continued operation. - (1) Common carriers. - (2) Congressional power over inter-state commerce.

II. All other methods for prevention of strikes or for peaceful settlement are ineffectual. - (a) Voluntary arbitration. - (b) Conciliation. - (c) State interference in inter-state traffic.

III. Such a Board would give the most efficient and satisfactory solution. - (a) Composed of men experienced in railroad matters and personally disinterested. - (b) Efficiency and promptness secured by compulsory power. - (c) Respect of all parties concerned.

IV. Experience in the past demands such a Board for the future. - (a) Where fairly tried compulsory arbitration effectual. - (1) Conseils des Prud 'hommes, Century IX, 947 (April 1886). - (b) Necessity of public interference where business of public importance. - (1) Coal strike in Eng., Spectator, LXXI, 705. - (2) London cab strike, London Times, June 7-9, 1894. - (3) Strike in Chicago, 1894.

Brief for the Negative.

S. W. PHILLIPS and J. ROBBINS.Best general references: Nation LIX, 376 (Nov. 22, 1894); Cooley in Forum XVIII, 14 (Sept., 1894); Public Opinion XVII, 842, 863 (Nov. 22, 29, Dec. 6, 1894).

I. Such a commission is not needed. - (a) Any legal claim may be enforced in the regular courts. - (b) If the regular courts have not power enough, they may be given it by law.

II. Compulsory arbitration is impracticable. - (a) Arbitration must be voluntary: - Forum XVIII, 15 (Sept., 1894). - (b) Attempts at compulsory arbitration in states have failed: Cummings in Quart. Jour. Econ. I, 497. - (c) It is unjust in its working. - (1) The decision can only be enforced against the corporation: Nation LIX, 376 (Nov. 22, 1894). - (2) And not against the men. C. D. Wright in Pub. Opin. XVII, 842 (Nov. 22, 1894). - (d) The decisions would not be respected. - (1) The commission would not be a court, but a mixture of court and administrative board. - (2) The personnel of the commission would deteriorate. - (i) Present interstate commerce commission. - (ii) Many classes of disputes cannot be arbitrated. - (1) Chicago strike: Forum XVII, 16 (Sept. 1894).

III. The commission would be opposed to business principles. - (a) Inquisitorial and meddling. - (1) Gives a share of the management of a business to other than the owners. - (b) Oppressive. - (1) Railroads already interfered with enough by commissions. - (2) Interferes with right of private contract.

IV. It is opposed to progress. - (a) Workingmen should not be treated as children: Nation LIX, 376 (Nov. 22, 1894.) - (b) Checks the growth of Trade Unions: Am. Fed. of Labor in Pub. Opin. XVIII, 863 (Dec. 6, 1894). - (c) Is opposed by Gompers and other labor leaders: Pub. Opin. (Nov. 29, 1894).