The San Francisco call., 1907-03-01
Beatty Replies Spiritedly
to Dissenting Opinion

Yorke says:
The dissenting opinion Of Father Yorke raises
question as to a matter concerning which 1
had not supposed there would be any contro-
versy. He quotes and correctly quotes decl-
sion made BY the board at its second session;
to the effect that the only matters 70 oe ueelueG
by the board were fair rates or wages anu
proper hours OF labor which 1 ne coprae
of January, 1905, ruled out of the case FOR
all purposes. AS the existence Of that contract
and its terms constitute one OF the prlnelpal
bases Of my award in the case of the carmen, II
is due to myself TO set this matter right.
1t will be noticed that the decision as quoted
makes no mention of the contract because ac-
cording to his recollection of the proceedings at
our first open session, the question then raised
simply and solely whether the existence and
terms of that contract were to receive any con-
recollection on this point were not at fault his
construction of the decision would be justified;
but he Is mistaken in bis recollection, and the
fact that there is no stenographie report OF our
first session does not leave Us without perfectly
satisfactory record evidence as to what did
occur.
In accordance with the preliminary direction
of the board, each of the parties to the arbl-
of its claims or defense. These in analogy 10
legal proceedings constituted the pleadings In
the cases Counsel for the respective parties
did nothing more in their opening statements
than to comment upon and TO explain 10 the
board the positions stated in their pieadings
and to ask the board to- determine definitely
what, In view Of the agreement of arbitration
and their respective complaints and answers,
must be confined This being SO, a reference TO
the pleadings win show what must have been
the question submitted to the board and taken
under advisement at its opening session
RECORD Is: CITED
There are four separate cases, of which it Is
only necessary for my present purposes 20. 70 reier
OF the electrical workers. The same counsel
represented all the unions and had put the
electrical workers in the nrst place; IN 1.,l ms
opening statement he enumerated the claims
of the electrical workers, which included, among
other things, a demand that the number OF ap-
prentices should be limited and that they should
be limited as to the class of work to be done
by them. To illustrate my point It is only
necessary to quote here the answer OF the com
pany to this demand, which was as follows;
Concerning the demands Of the employees to
the effect that but apprentice shall be al
lowed to every four jOurneymen or a fraction
thereof, and that their wages shall be fixed at
$3.50 per day in the beginning, to be increased
company protests against being required to ar
bitrate and contends that this honorable arbi-
from the complaints of the unions respectively
all claims in respect to apprentices. The
ground of this protest is that. the scope of
bitration Is limited to questions of wages and
hours and includes nothing else
1t will be seen that this answer to one of the,
demands OF the electrical workers raised the
precise question that the board was called upon
to decide, and that the terms OF the decision
are Ia exaSt rsspS1anse Sa to the question ..a. -,
dence of the question taken under advisement
than this passage quoted literally from the
answer of the company. Counsel fOr the
pany. was merely insisting in his oral presenta-
ton Of the case upon the position stated in its
answer; that the scope of the arbitration was
defined and limited by the agreement to .arbi-
trate and that our jurisdiction extended to moth
ing beyond the questions Of hours and wages
And that position was sustained by
imous decision on the following day. 1t IS true
that our decision bore upon other demands than
the particular demands of the electrical workers
here mentioned and it has this much to do with
the carmen's case. Counsel for the company
reiterated in his oral statement the position
taken IN his answer tndT since the grievance
alleged by the Carmen's Union in tie letter
of August is was a breach OF the contract by
the company, 1t was for the board 10 deter
mine whether there had been any such breach.
and he contended that If it had not violated
their contract, it could and would refuse 10
waive any OF their rights under it. This led TO
rather warm discussion toward the close of
the carmen used the expression to which Father
Yorke refers, to the effect that If the position
of the company In regard to the contract was
sustained there would be nothing to arbitrate
But he combatted the position, cOntending that
it made no difference whether the company had
violated the contract or not, it had nevertheless
agreed to arbitrate the question Of hours and
wages, and il the arbitrators decided. to
modify it's terms in those particulars
REVERSES HIS STAND
He contended it is true that the contract
had been violated by the company. and IL has
been his position from the beginning TO the
end of the case that its breach Of contract
gave the men a clearer right TO a larger com
pensation than that provided in the existing
scale, he terms 1t in bis answer But he also
the contract the company. by It's agreement to
arbitrate, had conceded such modification of its
terms as the arbirtators might hold to be just.
This controversy, somewhat warmly conducted
toward the end Of session. perhaps gave
rise to the impression the part of the re-
porters present Of, stated by Father Ycrke.
we were so quoted in the next mornings pa
pers). that the. question taken under advise
ment was whether the two-year contract was
to be at all considered in the case. 1t is
clear from a reading OF our decision as quoted
that such was not the question. Not 2 word Is
said about the contract nor the effect of its
breach observance.
The point decided and the whole point
was that raised by the answer OF the com
pany above quoted to the demands Of the cleo
trtcal workers regarding apprentices. We de-
cided, in other words, that Jurisdiction was
limited by the agreement TO arbitration of the
question Of hours and wages
As TO what matters are to be considered in
determining what are fair wages and proper
hours the decision is as silent as the grave
and II would argue singular ineptitude on
the part Of the arbitratOrs to suppose that
they had taken twenty-four hours to consider
a particular question and ended by filing a
written decision in which the question sub
mitted is not mentioned or decided Ii is also
true that IL neither necessary nor proper
to decide at any stage Of the what effect
a breach OF the contract by the company would
have upon the question OF wages and hours
1t might have been entirely proper. but was
not necessary then to decide. as we have now
decided, that irrespective Of any breach Of
the contract the company, had consented 10
modify its terms in respect 10 wages and hours
But that point was mot decided
In this connection II seems not Improper tn no