The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1917-03-19


President Calls Union Heads.
Little attention was paid to the dis
pute until late in the spring, it be-
came apparent neither side would yield
without struggle. Both sides claim
ed the other was bluffing. When Meth
er side would concede anything, and
the negotia tons at New Y DIRK seemed
about to end in a strike, President
Wilson asked leaders for the broth
erhoods and railroads to go to Wash
ington for conference. They did
first big delegation of the brother
hoods and the conference committee
of managers representing the roads.
Then, when the president was unable
to make a settlement, he called in
100 railroad executives, representing
every railroad and billions of dollars
of capital. The brotherhoods were
represented only by their presidents.
Again his efforts failed. One night
the executives announced they would
not yield. Later they showed printed
copies of a strike order-effective at
a. m. Labor Day, September 4.
Brotherhood leaders admitted the
strike had been called for that day
by SO per cent vote of the railroad
men.
commerce, President Wilson prepared
a message to congress, asking imme-
date passage of an eight-hour law.
Strike Called OF.
Adamson introduced his bill in the
house on August 81. The house pass
ed it next day. The senate passed it
September ,. The president approved
The strike was called off The bill
provided commission to Investigate
the working of the law-which was
effective January 1, 1917-within six
days after that to the president and
congress The country settled back
Then came rumorS the railroads
would fight the law, and on Novem-
Der 20, Alexander New and Henry C.
Ferris, receivers for the Missouri
Oklahoma & Gulf railroad, filed com
plant in the federal court at Kansas
City, attacking the constitutionality of
the law.
| Invalid Says Lower Court.
Judge William C. Hook of Kansas
City, considered the case November
22d and declared the act ''unconstitu-
tional null and void" and the ..judg-
| be sustained" That brought it before
| the supreme court on appeal.
| Railroad attorneys argued the law
is wage measure and is invalid. Gov
eminent attorneys held it to be an
hours-of-service law primarily, but
held that congress could Iegislate
wages for railroads, anyway, under the
commerce clause of the constitution
i Both sides had rather rocky time of
| it in court. as the justices. palpa bly,
, interested, interrupted frequently with
| questions.
There must be knowledge of the
| power eXerted before determining
/ whether as exercised it was constitu-
| tional and we must hence settle a
| dispute on that question before going
further.
Both Sides Right
"Only an eight-hour standard for
work and wages was provided, is the
| contention on the one side and in
substance only-a scale of wages was
provided, is the argument of the 9TH
er. We are of the opinion that both
lrare right, in a sense both wrong in
SO far as it is assumed that the one
| excludes the other. Both provisions
/ are equally mandatory
However, there is this very broad
| difference between the two powers
| exerted. The first, the eight-hour
! standard. is permanently fixed. The
second the fixing of the wage stand
ard resulted from the prohibition
against paying lower wages is ex-
pressly limited to the time specified
| in section two (of the law).
at is therefore not permanent but
/ temporary, leaving the employers and
| employees free as to the subject of
1 wages to govern their relations by
thei rown agreement after the speci-
fled time.