New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1912-11-25

the United States Commissioner OF
Labor and the PRECEDING judge OF tne
United States Commerce Court and ny
| Daniel Willard, president Of the Baltl-
more & Ohio Railroad, representing the
| railroads.
Morrissey Pessinnistie.
PHI. Morrissey, former grand master
of the Brotherhood OF Railroad Tram
men. representing the engineers, wrote
a dissenting opinion in which he eN-
pressed the belief that the award "ouiu
have the effect of retarding the prog
ress of arbitration in the settlement ol
| industrial disputes on the railroads.
Mr.. Morrissey contends that the
award does not settle the important
principles raised by the engineers ana
claims that it is based upon statistlcS
that are not only unreliable for the
| purposes for which the boarG USED
them but that the board also erred In
| the application of these wage statis-
| tics
For this reason, says Mr. Morrssey,
while the engineers will faithfully
abide by the award during the period
that il is to continue, at the same time
il can be only temporary because its
| funda mental basis is so insecure
Mr.. Morrissey recognizes the impor-
| lance to the engineers of the effects Of
such increases I'm wage rates and the
| establishing Of such uniform rules OF
service as the board has awarded.
There has been" he says, "a gain in
essentials and a step forward has been
| taken in the Standardization in engi-
neers' rates and of conditions for the
| Eastern district"
| Mr.. Morrissey dissents from the ma
! jority Of the board in their recon-
mendation that wage commissions be
established with power Of compulsory
arbitration, although he suggests that
there are some important activities TO
which wage commissions might profit
ably give their attention.
A Striking Arbitration Suggestion.
A striking suggestion is made in his
recommendation that hereafter arbi-
| traton boards should be so constituted
that none OF the parties composing
them-not even representatives of the
public-should have a majority OF the
members that the majority should be
! constituted by representatives OF at
least two Of the parties agreeing.
Mr.. Morrisseys dissenting report
concludes with the statement:
| I wish to emphasize my dissent from
! that recommendation Of the board WhIch
/ in It's effect virtually means compulsory
| arbitration for the railroads and their
! employees Regardless Of any probable
! constitutional prohibitions which might
! operate against it's being adopted, IL Is
wholly impracticable The progress low
] ard the settlement OF disputes between
| the railways and their employees without
recourse to industrial warfare has been
marked. There is nothing under present
conditions 10 prevent its continuance. IL
will never tc perfect, but, even So IL Will
! be immeasurably better than IL would
| be under conditions such as the board
proposes. The peace that would satisfy
! such an ideal condition as that had IN
mind by those making the recommends
I
! Il could be attained To insure the per-
manont Industrial peace so much de-
sired will require broader statesman
ship than that which would shackle the
rights OF large group Of our citizens.
History of tho Controversy.
The arbitration resulted from a con-
certed movement begun by the Brother
hood Of Locomotive Engineers in Janu-
|
ed TO the railroads a series OF requests
involving uniform rates OF pay, uniform
classihcations of service and uniform
working rules throughout the Eastern
district. Refusal OF the railroads to
grant the requests in part or In whole
resulted in strike vote by the engi-
necrs which indicated that more than 30
| per cent Of the men were prepared 10 go
out upon approval of Grand Chief War
rem : stone Judge Martin A. Knapp,
OF the United States Commerce Court
and Dr. Charles +. Neill, United States
| Commissioner Of Labor, urged an AMIGA
| bic settlement. 4 conference with these
| two officials brought about an agreement
! between the railroads and the engineers
| 10 submit the dispute 10 board OF ar
bitratoTs.
The board began IT'S deliberations in
July but only to-day was able 20 an
| nouuce its conclusions. Hearings were
| given more than Il score OF engineers,
whose case was presented by Grand
Chief Warren s. Stone, and the railroads
were represented by W. Nj. Duncan, re-
| ceiver OF the Wheeling & Lake Erie, and
| -. A. WorthingtOn, now president Of the
| Chicago & Alton. Each party presented
an abundance Of statistical material and
OF documentary evidence In support or
its contentious.
Claims Of the Engineers.
The engineers presented as arguments
| IN favor OF their claims the following:
| The nature Of their calling. they stated,
| involved heavy and increasing response
biiity. great skill and efficiency, long pre-
paratory training, acute mental strain,
| much hazard and limited years of earn
ing power They held that on account
of the increase in the size of engines
their responsibility and productivity
were steadily increasing. They held
that the wages of engineers had not kept
pace with other classes Of train service
and that the wages of the engineers in
the Eastern district were not so high as
IN the Southern and Wester divisions.
The railroads. on their side, held that
the engineers now receive not only a fair
/ but liberal compensation for the work
performed. being the highest paid class
OF employees I'm the railroad service; that
the hours Of duty We're limited and other
conditions OF service so arranged as to
N gIp Ia Ia pnrtpal