Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1920-08-23
DISCHARGED RAIL
MEN WIN INITIAL
COURT SKRMISH
Continued from First Page,


orders, or would they yield to tho -tii-
rection of their organization"
wherever the response was that
they would obey the direction OF the
organization and embarrass the pub
lie and threaten injury to the COM
pany's property" the answer stated,
1.-The officers of the company DEEM
ed that it was their duty to dispense
with the service of such individual or
individuals for the good of the serv-
ice and to obtain others to fill their
places who would be loyal to the
public interest and to the defendant
railways welfare"
1t was further stated that in their
efforts to embarrass the company the
plaintiffs and those associated with
them have put one of the cars of the
railway out of commission and arc
endeavoring to do minor actions OF
injury such as throwing switches,
etc.
Arguments for Dismissal.
Attorney Lambert's motion to dis
miss the proceedings was based on
three principal arguments. nrst that
the bill as filed did not set forth any
facts warranting the granting OF the
belief prayed for: second. that IL con-
tanned no equity. and hnally IL con-
tanned no facts warranting the renef
| sought under the railroad transporta-
| ton act referred to therein The at
| torney said that for the present ne
! would rely on the motion as hleo. put
that he might file more speclnc
answer to the bill later.
The principal contention OF the de-
tense was that the language OF the
act, which is the one which proVideo
for the return of the railroads 10
private control on March l. last ora
not include the Washington ana Sid
Dominion road in the scope OF the
section relating to the labor board;
Mr.. Lambert said that when the
government took over the ROADS at
the beginning of the war II was the
opinion of Judge John Barton Payne,
now Secretary of the interior. .nae
the Washington and Old Dominion
road should not be included in the
roads taken over. and that II was
not disturbed by the government Inc
same language is used IN the act OF
April, said Mr.. Lambert. where the
| functions of the labor board are oe
scribed. and if the defendant road was
! not included in the one instance IL
should not be included in the other
Quotes From the Act.
The attorney for the defendants
read from the act to show that inter
urban electric railways were not 10
] be included in it's provisions relatins
to labor disputes.
is that the test. merely whether
the TOduS use clCSti ~ VI SN>A"
err" asked Justice Siddons.
1T is the test as set forth in the
act" said Mr.. Lambert.
But what about the roads. such as
the New York. New Haven and Hart.
ford, and the Pennsylvania lines. and
others. that have electric trains In
and around New York city?'
Those roads use steam as wen,
YOUR honor" said Mr.. Lambert.
! This bill alleges that the defend
ant road is engaged in interstate com
! MERGE" said Mr.. Mackey at this point,
land it has applied 10 .he in.ei
Commerce Commission for PERMISSION
to increase its rates. 1t operates IN
jccpnection with several steam roads.
Including the Southern. the thesa-
reake and Ohio and the PennsyiVaF
mia. ,;a ~.
defans, had never denied that 1T was
Engaged in interstate commerce put
said that the section OF law whieh
covered rate-making was ~oroeo OIL
ferentN from the section governing
labor disputes and that while the dr-
fendant road came under the former
section the latter did not apply
I .It might be we'll to kEow Whether
| there are any agreements between
this road and any railroad Iihes en
| der which it delivers frelent or re-
ceiyes freight" the court remarked.
I mere dIc ~
| said Mr.. Lambert n. ar
Replying to Mr.. La annie, , Mr
Mackey said that as far back as 1857
Gnnarsss had attempted to prevent
disnntes between railroads and their
empioves from hampering the opera
IVY oi, This act of 1920 Congress took
what was supposed to be the most
efficient means of preventing strikes:
lid Mr.. Mackey. I'VE must admit
tbat Congress had the right to COM
mel railroads to arbitrate such dis-
nutes before instituting a lockout II
made it mandatory on the ROADS 10
rant a conference, and it did not an
, ticipate such summary action as the
defendant road has taken in this case.
1T provided for adjustment boards
to be created. and then, to cover IN
stances where such boards were NOT
created. OF where they could not
agree, it created the labor board:
which is now sitting in Chicago and
where adjustment of these differences
properly lies