The Farmington times. (Farmington, St. Francois County, Mo.) 1905-1926, 1916-10-06
Head of Trainmen
Answers Hughes

| a month ago, issued a signed state
ment in which he asks the former JUS
tice some questions.
| Mr.. Lee points out that the prin-
ciple of arbitration was not sacri-
feed and also that the railroads in
cluded in the propositions they want
ed arbitrated many points that the
brotherhoods had gained after years
of erdeavor. The statement follows:
By w. G. Lee, President of the
Brotherhood of Railway Trainmen.
Mr.. Hughes, in discussing the
Adamson eight-hour law, declared
against the law and in favor Of an
investigation of the facts" before
Legislative enactment.
What does He Mean?
What does he mean by investiga-
ton of the facts? If he means to in
vestigate the ability of the railroads
to operate on a 1914 -mile-an-hour
speed basis, the answer in the af-
firmative is to be found in the fact
that many of the railroads in the
United States have been for several
years operating on a speed basis of
/ 12R miles an hour.
Does Mr. Hughes understand that
according to the railroad companies
own figures, in the engineers and
firemen's case (Western) that the
submission of the railway companies
showed that 70 per cent of the through
freight business was performed on a
1917 mile per hour basis?
Roads Earnings an Answer.
If he means to investigate the abil-
ity of the railroads to pay whatever
increased costs will arise from the
operation of the law, the earnings of
the railroads appear to be sufficient
answer to that inquiry.
If he means to investigate the re-
suits of the operation of the eight
hour law, could he not agree that the
effects could not very we'll be inves-
tigated until the law had been tried
out?
Does not Mr.. Hughes understand
that the principle of arbitration,
which, he declares, has been lost, had
no place in the proposition of the
railway companies to arbitrate, be-
cause they refused to include in their
proposed arbitration rs of the smaller
railroads where they believed strike
for the eight-hour day could be de-
feated?
Roads Arbitration Attitude.
Does he not know that the rail
roads refused to include in the pro-
| posed arbitration the colored brake
men, firemen and hostlers, which, had
the proposition been accepted, would
have fixed two classes Of service con-
dition and rate of pay on all the rail
roads in the South and number of
them in the Southwest?
Does Mr.. Hughes know that in the
railroad proposition to arbitrate they
refused TO include the white hostlers
on IS roads in their arbitration?
The wages of these men have been
fixed by the Brotherhood of Loco
motive Firemen and Engineers, anC
in some instances by previous arbi-
trations. Does not Mr.. Hughes I'M
derstand that the railway organiza-
tions fix wages and service condi-
lions for the job and not the man?
Regarding Investigation.
Would it not appear reasonable
that the railroads refused to arbi-
trate wherever they felt strong
enough to defeat a strike, and insist
ed upon arbitration where they be-
lieved the organizations successfully
could strike?
If, by an investigation of the facts,
ne means to include the propositions
that have been herein enumerated,
the railroad employees are fully JUS
titled in their belief that investiga-
ton before legislation was not at all
necessary and in not accepting the
proposition of the railroad companies
to postpone indefinitely their move
for the shorter work day they were
fully justified.
Does Mr.. Hughes understand that
in the railroads proposition TO arbi-
trate they included very many of the
advantages that had been gained af-
| ter several years of efforts by these
organizations
1t is not usual to include in arbi-
trations advantages that have al
ready been gained Suppose the Unit
ed States and Mexico had bound
airy dispute. and Mexico fixed the
terms of arbitration, as the railroads
proposed to do in the case under dis
cussion. and included its right to the
State of Texas on the ground that one
time it owned that State.
Real Principle Lacking.
The principle of arbitration in this
instance was not sacrificed, because
! the real principle of arbitration did
not appear. What was supposed to
answer for it was offered by the rail-