Now, the newspapers at the time took me to task. I ques-
tioned Mr. Lusk in those public gatherings as to what was really
meant by compulsory arbitration. I asked him if it did not mean
that the workers were to be prohibited by law from stopping
work, from quitting employment. I finally pinned him down to
the point and he said it did. I asked him that in the event of
workmen refusing to abide by an award of a board or a court
of arbitration, whether it did not mean that these workers would
be fined or imprisoned or both. It was really extracting an



264 LABOR AND THE EMPLOYER

answer from him when he finally admitted that that would be
the result of disobedience of the court's or board's finding.
I was written down or written up as one who was promoting
disorder among the workers, and one who wanted to prevent
from being put into operation a very fine method which would
prevent strikes.
In spite of any opposition that we could manifest, in the Con-
gress of the United States and in several of the legislatures, bills
were introduced for compulsory arbitration, compulsory investi-
gation, and making it unlawful for workmen in concert to leave
their employment before a board of arbitration had rendered
its award or until a board of investigation had made inquiry and
rendered an award.
