The producers news. [volume] (Plentywood, Mont.) 1918-1937, 1919-11-28

voluntary Adjustment
oily ;5od in Rail Vote-Ships
PrGldnetHb er Public Property
and ;Sf;ced-Wets and Drys
SacrlnP olshevism ''Syndi-
AguWv ouId Get Railroads"
cav Expert-WoOl Plentiful
says Soy Wool NsG~tC Clothing Out Of
Ge:ansbt-Baer Urges Public
sslssnsrship of Mines.
a,,sbington, D. ca tidal
q WASH Of kilograms and letters
ssHs so to received by every
u p Of the house, explains
r pc hidden check given the anti
the e.. SD legislation proposed both
'OQ tho Committee on interstate
" U foreign commerce and by
anu ,.o ~ Of individual congress
go. .SolSs as u a part of the railroad
81
'nl An alarm was sent out from
Thor headquarters mere to ev-
soy humber Of railroad men are
a ,.,1Dloved. The answer was re-
ss1afod in thousands Of demands
~. two years extension of the
~. p~aiod of government operation,
p~J in an almost equal number
@fG demands that the Plumb plan
u Dnblic ownership be enacted
into law.
mind to adopt the committee
nr,nnOsal, which made it possible
for the railroad companies to
,ftach all union funds to salts
f. claims for damages whenever
he employees went on strike.
REPRESENTATIVE Webster of
Washington offered a substitute
which provided that the private
DrOperty of every member of a
Thor organization involved in a
abroad strike might be seized.
t also proposed jail sentences
for the union members.
The Webster scheme was too
strong for more than a small
handful of anti-labor congress
men. The committee clause
was condemned by most Of the
men who represent industrial
sections. Finally an amend
ment suggested by Sweet of
Iowa, and offered by Anderson
Of Minnesota, was adopted. 1t
provided simply for boards of
adjustment, such as now exist,
and made no provision against
strikes as the last resort.
Sacrifice of Public Property
As in the case Of the bill or
dering the sale Of the govern
mentS huge merchant fleet, so
with the bill returning the rail
roads to private operation, with
Guaranteed dividends. the Non
partisan league congressman,
Baer and Sinclair, voted "no."
They have taken the stand all
along, that the bipartisan ma
dime operating in the house and
senate was exceeding the speed
limit in it's anxiety to sweep all
Of the fruits of the vast invest
nentS Of Liberty bond money
into the hands of the profiteers.
Between the merchant marine
bill and the railroad bill there
was little difference in purpose
and method. Both bills took
away from the people the means
Of transportation, and handed
i over, On generous terms, to
the private interests that are
most conspicuously responsible
Tor the increasing cost of living
to the American people during
the war and since the armistice.
During discussion of the mer-
chant marine bill, Mr.. Baer call
ed attention to the fact that the
American farmer and consumer
are obliged to pay more for the
handling Of foodstuffs between
die farm and the retail trade in
a city located within a few
score miles of that farm, than
Is paid by the Australian farm
g and consumer in the city Of
L London who receives product.
ms IS due to the fact that the
islmer In interior Australia
@keS his butter or grain to
Town, turns it over to the gov
eminent shipping agency, and
mas 1t handled for him over &
government railroad, a govern
ment managed steamship line
and through a British govern
aent distribution agency, unit
II reaches the retailer in Lon.