The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1894-02-10
AN INTERESTING QUESTION.

1t is stated that the employees Of the
Union Pacific railroad are about to raise the
question whether If, as Judge Dundy says,
they are employees of the United States
Court, they ought not to be paid on the
eight-hour-a-day basis. The point is in
geDious and not without force. An act of
Congress passed In 1868 says that "eight
hours shall constitute n days work for all
be employed by or on behalf of the govern
ment Of the United States" The language
of the law is peculiar. embracing not only
all laborers and workmen employed by the
government but all employed on it's behalf.
This is construed as applying to persons
working for a government contractor or
subcontractor. and evidently the law was
intended to have that application. The
question has never before been raised as
to it's applicability to the employees of a
railroad in the hands Of a receiver appointed
by a United States judge, but having been
raised it will doubtless be pushed to a de-
cision- The theory of a receivershlp is that
the entire business for which a receiver is
appointed is in the hands and under the
control OF the court making the appoint
ment- The former proprietors of the bust
ness are for the time being entirely dis
placed and have no voice whatever |. it's
control. The receiver is subject to the or
ders of the court. He derives all his author
ity from the court and is responsible to it
for everything that he does or leaves un-
done in the management of the business.
The court may direct a general reduction
OF the wages of employees, as in the case
of the Union Pacific it has recently done,
and it may. as has been done in more than
one instance. assert the authority of the
government to prevent any interference by
employees with the management Of the bust
ness. Obviously there is some ground for
the claim that persons who are so COM
pletely under the control of the government
are. for the time at least, its employees and
entitled to the privileges of the eight-hour
law.
The natural answer to the claim is that
such employees are not employed ION behalf
of the government in the sense that per-
sons working under a government contract
are For example. men working in a
quarry getting out stone under a govern
ment contract, men working in an arsenal
manufacturing arms for the government,
or in any other line of work, the ultimate
product or benefit of which inures to the
government. are employed on it's behalf.
But in the case of a railroad receivership
the government has no pecuniary interest
In the business or its product. 1t is not in
the business voluntarily, but at the request
of certain parties in interest. The re-
ownership is not in the interest OF the gov
eminent The work on the road is not
of the business, If any, inure to the benefit
of the stockholders or bondholders. and if
any saving is made or loss averted by the
receivership it is for their benefit, not that
of the government. 1t may, therefore, with
strong reason be contended that although
the employees of a railroad in the hands Of
a receiver appointed by N United States
Judge are under the control of the court
even in a larger degree than are those of a
corporation, yet they are not employed ION
behalf of the government" in the sense in
tended by the law. The Journal believes
this is the correct view of the case. and yet
there is enough room for doubt to make
1t desirable to have the question settled by
the courts.
If the question should be decided in favor
OF the workmen 1t would result in a large
increase of their wages. and as these have
TO be paid out of the earnings of the road
it would nave a tendency to reduce the
number Of applications for receiverships.
Under the eight-hour law the wages of most
railroad employees would be nearly doubled,
and a receivership, instead of being a meas
ure of economy, would be the reverse.