The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1894-04-18
HE WORTHOF LABOR
ut Fixed by Desperate Compe-
tition Between Unemployed.
CANNOT CUT WAGES.
osage Langley Orders Rainier Avssos
Electric Line KmpfsysG wages
Restored 70 the Old Rata.

E& lHS GxAH3tte SCI " S31Ef f1~shs ~
he United States circuit court. in restor-
lag The wages Of Union Pacific employees,
which had been arbitrarily cus BY the ~
Eteivers without notice 30 or consent Of the
sTsmpsoyes themselves. vas followed yssfef-
! day ~ Judge Langley. OF the superior
court, In restoring the wages OF the con-
duct0rs and mo.ormen on the Rainier
avenue electric lire. which had necn sum.
MARTY cue from 70 cents 70 Is cents per
hour by Receiver w. j. Grambs. This
action BY 0rambs had been taken after 3
conference between him and other street
ysiiway managers. and was followed by
esmlIsr reductions on the Union Trunk
tire, The Consolidated street railway lines
and the Third street electric line, the two
latter roads being ia charge OF Receiver
~ r. Backas, who also made the reduce
lions snmmariiy. In these last two cases
lhe employees also Intend protesting in
eonss against the reduction.
The petition of the Rainier Ayenua
eleetrie railway employees granted yes,er-
ly BY Judge Langley set forth that
neariy aii Of them had worked for the
company ever since the building Of the
1asd. They had been induced to enter the
Z SVWFob1 @6st'Sy Wy ~ HRfeemeUt 70
bay houses and lots In Columbia CITY and
ysy for the same by inssailments withheld
1rom their wages. Aost Of them have
families. and they have faithfully served
Che company. 80 evidence Of this citing
the fact that there has never been an ac-
tident or suit for damages brought
sgsInst the company by reason OF any
neglect on their part. and also the fact
/ thai. although their wages had been with
Bad for several months, until there was
On average OF $50 due TO each man. BE-
cause Of the chaotic condition OF the
affairs Of the road, due to the absence
from the city Of J. X. Edmiston. the
owner, and Notwithstanding that their
tamilies had often suffered severely from
want, they had remained at their posts
and faithfully and carefully served the
company. They had been receiving -
esnts IN hour for an average OF nins hours
q day. when on April 2 Receiver Grambs
had cut their pay 10 10 cents an hour, or
ei62 per day. which they complained was
I - unreasonabiy low rate OF wages, upon
which they could not decsntly live.
On the trial Of the case the recsiver was
ssepresented by Judge Burke, While Dom
h worth Howe appeared for the employees.
i The receiver offered testimony aud an
davits from many street railway managers
on the Coast TO show that Is cents m hour
Vas not less than the current rate of
wages paid on the Coast, one of the an
dayiis being from Salem, Or, where tho
rate OF wages paid 10 10 cents an hour. K.
j. Whittier, general manager Of the Union
Trunk Line. admitted that 10 cents an
hour was too low q rate Of wages for men
70 live decently and that he would not
offer such rate OF wages to his men, who
work on an average eleven hours day.
IL was also testified that the whole amount
% be saved to the company by the reduc-
tion was only $50 a month.
In his argument for the men Mr.. Howe
cited numerous authorities TO show that
the operation OF corporation by the court
Should he In the interest of the public aud
not in the interest of the creditors, and he
frequently alluded TO the recent rulings OF
Judge Caldwell in the Union Pacific case.
He said that il was getting to be one of
the scandals of the day that receivers APP
polnted ut exorbitant salaries had srbi.
trariiy cut the wages Of employees. He
said that IL the criterion was to be not
what the labor of . man il worth, but
What under stress of circumstances men
could be found TO do the work for, men
couta be found to preside over courts Of
Justice who would DO willing to serve for
less than judges now receive.
Judge Burke's argument was very brief.
and was TO the effect that he had never be-
fore heard the proposition urged in court
that any one had right TO levy a forced
tontribution upon another mans property
IN order 10 maintain . high rate of wages.
lie said the present case was different from
The Union Pacific case. wherein Judge
sCald well ruled that II would be Gnequtabls
10 cut down the wages OF the enployes In
order that the stockholders' profits could
b maintained, whereas In this case the
read was not earning its running I penses.
s>Judge Langley said that the receivers
conduct had been commendahle in the
main and his motives were proper. bat
sxhsn 1t came to 80 serious q matter 40 cut
tsng the wages OF the employees be should
have presented the matter To the court
Whenever he discovered that the men were
BOT willing TO submit to the reduction.
The conference between the receiver and
csher railway superintendents had been
3ass. but j; as not his duty to make q rate
OF wages as the result of such q conference.
D His duty ended when he got the informa-
ton by advising the court of what he had
learned. He should not have used the in-
formation he had gained as the basis for
any arbitrary action Of his own. The re-
sesver is simply the means by which the
eeat manages tho property. ii duty
vas FIRST TO inform himseif and then TO In
yaf pNf Ia Ex. nNta fAr
TIE court aud not the reverse. and he did
wong 10 making the reduction without
tAe sanetiou of the court.
As 10 tho reasouahieness of the wages
she caar. said that 80 witness had said
" eents an hour Vas n high rate. The
Rates quoted as prevalent in other cities
eosld not he fully appreciated because the
circumstances under Which they had been
PAT into effect were not wholly stated.
Perhaps every road, on account OF the re-
candancy of idle men. could End nsn to
fan their reads at oae-half 10 three-'oarths
OF the present rate OF wages. Bat these
nsa would be working for an unreason-
aass low rate of wages. Many rasn would
MIX. under the spur Of necessity, merely
Tor enough So keep soul and body together.
topseyent distress ana suffering to their
wives and chit iren. but such circumstances
saousd not he a precedent in court nor in
seassness either. The best interests os
sasshcss in general as well as those OF the
esspoyes onid Re better served by pay
iars good honest wage than sn anrsason-
by low Mage
As Ter the concern not paving It's run
eing expenses, the court said that those
vac Aad v8t their property iaio the con-
sesa al values which then seemed 60 them
fsasonAbls Lad undoubtedly been 5asap-