New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1915-05-02
The Railroad Wage Award.

The illogicality of our system of rail
road regulation is demonstrated once more
in the arbitration award in the Western
railroads case. The demands of the en-
gineers, fremen and engine caretakers for
better working conditions and higher pay
were submitted TO q board organized un-
der the terms of the Federal Cancellation
law. Two members OF the board repre-
scented the railroads, two the men and two
the Federal Board Of Mediation and Con-
citation. The aware, rom which the rep
resentatives OF the men sharply dissented,
allowed moderate increase in wages and
made a number of concessions as to the
other points of complaint.
The associations of railway employees
say that they have gained nothing sub
stantial. Circuit Judge Jeter c. Pritchard,
the chairman of the board, admits that
on the face Of the case the men were en-
titled to more than they got, and they
would undoubtedly have received more
had the arbitration been one between men
and employers in an industry not subject
to unintelligent governmental regulation.
But how could any arbitration commission,
taking into consideration the restrictions
put on the earning power Of the railroads,
equitably ask the common carriers to
raise wages so long as another agency Of
the Federal government-the Interstate
Commerce COMMISSIONS VIGOROUSLY re
luctant to allow them to increase their
earnings?
Here is the great vice Of the present
system of Federal control. Congress
passes laws which practically cOerce the
railroads into wage arbitrations in which
any award made is certain to be against
them. It also puts new burdens on the
carriers in the way of increased taxes and
safety first" equipment requirements
But the correlative duty Of sanctioning
additions in rates which will make good
the losses thus imposed is cheerfully
shifted by Congress to the Interstate
Commerce Commission. The latter body
has policy Of its own, feels no response
bility for the increased charges created by
LEGISLATION or arbitrations, and takes only
a perfunctory interest in offsetting by ad-
vanced rates the new drains on railroad
revenues. Divided responsibility in con-
troll thus works all along the line to the
marked disadvantage of the carriers.
There is only one way to re-establlsh
the principle of fair play in railroad regu-
lation. That is to centralze responsibility.
IF a law is passed increasing the eX-
penses of the railroads, or an award IS
made by a board of arbitration under
the Cancellation act, it should be put direct
" nm 70 the Interstate Commerce Commits
sisn to supply the additional railroad
revenue needed to comply with the law
or the award. New charges should be
conditional on increases in rates. So long
as the government regulates the railroads
the latter are necessarily tied down to
very moderate profits. Those profits should
not be subjected to artificial disturbance
through legislation or wage arbitratlons
If il had been understood at Chicago
that the Interstate Commerce Commission
was to adjust the railroad rates to the
arbitration boards findings Judge Prltch-
ard would not have felt obliged to apollo
gize in a measure for the award. The en-
ployes would have got what they de-
served on the economic merits of the case
and the cost of the wage advance would
have been passed-as it ought always to
pass-to the public using the railways.
Governmental regulation ought to work
both ways. If it is decided to he in the
public interest to advance the cost Of
railroading, the public ought to be pre-
pared TO face the situation honestly and
furnish the money out of which the extra
charges must be met.