The Washington times., 1917-05-26

employees would agree to a contract
this year similar to that of last year,
NO" replied the witness. My
recollection is that Commissioner
Newman said he did not think the
employees would be satisfied with an
agreement like that made in 1915"
Did you hear Mr.. Newman testify
TO anything like you have just testi-
fed to?" Senator Pittman asked.
Didn't you hear him testify that he
did tell Mr.. King he could give assur-
ances that the men would waive rec
ognition of the union and make a con-
tract similar to that of 1857"
Il heard him say that" responded
the witness, "but I'm sorry to dis
agree with Mr.. Newman"
Would Prevent Strikes.
Responding to other questions by
Senator Pittman, Secretary Bowen
said he prepared the Individual con-
tract to prevent strikes. He said he
believed employees of public utilities
were quasi-publIc employees and
should be prohibited from striking.
He said he did not discuss the
anti-strIke provision OF the contract
with King. The president. he said,
added to the contract the new wage
scale.
Cross examined by Attorney Vahey,
the witness was asked:
"Is there anything in the records
to show that Mr.. King was author
lied to make individual contracts
with the employees. or to engage
strikebreakers?"
The witness replied in the mega
tive.
Kings Authority Sufficient.
WAS Mr. Kings conduct before or
after March IL ever ratified or ap-
proved by the board of directors?"
was the next question.
NO" answered the witness. THE
president of the company did not
need the approval of the board"
Attorney Vahey brought out that
resented non-union as well as union
men.
Attorney William Nick. Clayton,
representing the Federation OF Citi-
zens' Associations, then asked the
witness:
You believed the employees ought
not to strike, did you not?"
YES" replied the witness, land in
that connection ! want to say the
company did everything humanity pos
sible to prevent this strike"
Might Eliminate Argument.
Attorney Hoover then said:
''If Mr.. Bowen will elaborate his
reply a little be will save me the
trouble of making an argument at
the end of this case"
as the attitude of the company
favorable to a union among the en-
ployes?" inquired Attorney Clayton.
There is no need for a union whose
cardinal principle is the right to
strike" replied Bowen.
The witness added he did not think
Government workers should be per-
mitted to strike and that the same
inhibition should apply to employees
of public utilities.
do you believe In unionism?" ask
ed Senator Johnson.
That's a hard question" responded
Secretary Bowen.
II It's Right Kind.
More mirth was provoked when
Senator johnson asked Bowen IL he
believed in collective bargaining and
the witness replied:
"If it's the right kind of collective
bargaining. / am"
Senator Johnson then remarked:
Lyon are the examplification Of the
tradition that lawyers make the poor
est witnesses because they won't
answer questions"
After Secretary Bowen testified that
the wages of less than 500 a year
paid prior to 1916 was proper pay"
for the trainmen, he was asked how
the company justified its action in
granting increases amounting to
$4,000 a year after last years strike.
President King was then called to
the stand.