The San Francisco call., 1907-02-28
BEATTY AND M'LAUGHL|N
ARE WILLING To RESIGN
Ready to Step Out If
Either Side Should
So Request
AWARD IS DELAYED
Opinion of Father Yorke
Causes Postponement
for a Day
Continued from Page /, Column 7

/
! sponsible, he says, and he absolves the
company from blame for the condi-
! tfons in as far as they affected the en-
/ ployment of the motormen and con-
ductors TWO pages are devoted to this
discussion.
1t was the duty,o the carmen, Judge
| Beatty continues, in common with every
other member of the community, to
share the burden of the conditions
| brought about by the earthquake and
fire. He asserts that the company lost
heavily, refers to the large outlays
which. it has made. and commends 1T
for its diligence in meeting the condi-
1 tions. He says that the first duty of
/ the United Railroads was to the public
and praises II for the promptness with
which it resumed service on the car
i Ines There is no evidence. he says,
that the company was wanting in its
duty to the public.
Referring again to the contract,
! Judge Beatty says that it furnishes in
controvertible evidence that up to the
time of the; fire the men had regarded
/ the wages and hours therein fixed as
| fair and reasonable, and that inasmuch
as they returned to work voluntarily
! it must be held that they recognized
! the obligation resting upon them to
carry out their part of the bargain. He
holds. that the railroad fulfilled its duty
to the men when it re-employed them.
: FAvoRS TEN-HOUR DAY
Following this the opinion takes up
! the consideration of the eight hour day
and gives at considerable length the
reasons urged by the company against
reducing the hours of the men. Judge
Beatty upholds the contention of the
company that the eight-hour system
would be fmpracticable. He expresses
! the opinion that as the cars are op-
q cd INF in y
! ty-four it is easy to divide the day
! into two periods of ten hours each and
| he seeks to show by the varying num-
| Der of cars in operation during the day
that IT would be impossible to divide
/ the time into two eight-hour shifts.
! He refers to the eight-hour time
tables put in evidence by the union,
| which would enable the company to
1 make the same number of runs and
| give the same service to the public,
but expresses the opinion that under
such timetables there would be a great
number of extra men, or men with
short runs who would be unable to
earn fair living. In this connection
he commends the company for it's pol
icy as stated by its witnesses at the
| hearing, of arranging runs so as to
give full pay to as many men as pos
sible. -
Finally the Chief Justice declares
the eight-hour day for the reason that
six months of the time covered by the
award have already passed and tnat
during this time the men have been.
working ten hourss The board, he
pointed out,icannot give them back the
two hours for this period even If it
t-would. For this reason as we'll he be-
i. 1ieves That's it would be unwise to
! make any change, and he adds that the
| board feels itself to. be Incompetent to.
arrange an eight-hour timetable for
the company.
SEES NO CONGESTION
With reference to the question of
wages the Chief Justice admits that
the work Of the platform men has in
creased to some extent. He holds that
the claims of. the carmen that the
traffic on the cars of the company has
increased so per cent is untenable. He
refers to the testimony given by Chap
man and Hibbs, who claimed that the
increase was one and a fraction pas
sengers per car mile, and sustains their
position by holding that no marked in
crease of traffic has been shown on any
line except on the Fillmore and Fill
more hill lines. Even granting that
there have been more passengers on
the cars than formerly, Judge Beatty
says, the work of the men has not been
increased in proportion-certafnly not
the work of the motormen. He adds
that any man of average intelligence
can learn the duties Of a platform man
in few weeks.
Judge Beatty refers to the contention
of the unions that the conditions were
| in part created voluntarily by the COM
pany, which imposed additional work
upon the men by refusing to repair and
operate the cable cars. He finds that
| the cable power stations were de-
Cf rnu ad mr. hof rr,fp Il
was naturally an obstacle in the work
of rehabilitation, and that, the cable
| lines being out of commission. the
company went about the work of re-
constructing an electric system. This,
| Chief Justice Beatty thinks, 1t did
from its sense of duty to the people,
a duty wnich he says was imperative
at that time. He alludes to the fact
that 1T Is said that the company had
a selfish motive in this, and admits
that the company was benefited there
by, but holds that 1t was a necessity
and that the public received the
greater benefit. The need was so great
that the company was fully justified In
changing its lines to the trolley sys-
tenn.
COMMENDs THE TROLLEY
He expresses the opinion that the
people were in favor of the change and
refers to the paper by William Bark
ley Parsons, introduced in evidence
by counsel for the carmen" by which
he shows the superiority of the trolley
over all other systems
In the following paragraph Judge
Beatty draws attention to the total abb
sence of evidence to show that there
was any culpability on the part of the
company In making the change to the
overhead trolley
1t is true, the opinion says, that
some of the platform men have worked
/ harder than others since the fire, but it
is impossible to single these out from
the rest, and In the case of the award
1t must deal with general averages,
which would preclude the recognition
of the men who have worked harder
since the fire.
The Chief Justice then passes to the
terms of the award, which have al