Evening journal., 1921-05-26
WHERE THE DECREASE WAS.

TINE RAILWAY AGE publishes data in its current issue
II showing that while the efficiency with which the
physical facilities Of the railways used was greater
in 1920 than in previous year. the average output oil
transportation per empoye sharply declined between 1917
1870 other words it contends, II is the labor fur
nished by the employees and not the officers and physical
facilities furnished by the Of the railways, that
has declined in efficiency.
The Railway Age illustrates its point by giving statis-
tics showing the output freight transportation per mile
Of railroad per freight locomotive per freight car and per
employe the years 1913 1917 and 1890 all OF which were
peak years In that in each Of them more freight was
handled than in any previous year.
It shows that in 1913 the number OF ton miles handled
over each mile Of railroad iS5iO in 1917 1908 1925;
and 1920 i7i79is. The number Of ton miles handled
with each freight locomotive was-i9i3, s650A46 1917
II 67; 1920 LESBOS The number Of ton miles
freight car was as follows: 1913 iisi7i; 1917, 1889
1920 i9O95i
The number OF ton miles per employe in 1913 1877
ST., and in 1917 250997, while in 1920 it had declined TO
22i ,92i
1T will be seen" says the Railway Age that in 1917
as compared with 1918, and in 1920 compared with
both 1917 and 1913, there large increase in the
amount Of freight traffic handled per each mile Of line
each freight locomotive and each freight 1t Will also
seen that between 1918 1917 large in
crease in the amount Of freight traffic handled per en-
ploye While however, between 1917 and 1920 the amount
Of freight handled with each unit Of the physical facilities
increased the amount Of freight handled per employe
showed a sharp decline"
The railways under private management in 1917
and again in 1920 Was this decline in the amount OF
trac handled per empLlye in 1920 due to shortcomings
OF private management On the contrary it is easy 20
demonstrates that it due 10 the aftermath Of govern
ment operation In 1917 under private operation the
table shows the number OF tons carried mile e
poye 25O997 This figure the result Of steady
incre in the ad
on long period Of years. and was the maximum
figure reached In 1918 under government operation
the tons carried mile per empoye declined to 2i5ii
This decrease output per employe entirely due to
large in the number Of employees since the total
amount Of freight handled by the railways in 1918 was
slightly larger than in 1917.
1919 the second year Of government operation, while
the total amount OF freight tranc carried by the railways
declined over ten per cent the number OF employees
tualy Increased over 10000. The result that the
number OF tons carried mile per empoye declined
further to 2OsO26 While therefore, the amount OF freight
handled per employe in 1920 under private management
was than in 1917 under private management it wa:
greater than in 1919 under government operation.
The facts are then, that the tracks, locomotives anC
cars Of the railways the methods of using which al
most entirely under the control OF the officers hav,
steadily increased their output per unit 1t fact tina
the railway arrangements in 1870 secured greater out
put from practically every other physical facility ha
lever secured before On the other hand the averag
output OF the employees abruptly declined under govern
ment control and is st much less than 1t in i9i7
The labor leaders say that the productive efficiency"
the employees measured in passenger miles and ton mile
lis greater than before the The figures show this
true the output per empoye being greater in 1920 than
1913 When however the labor leaders appear before tn
Senate Committee the members Of that committee ma
well inquire why 1920 the productive efficiency OF
physical facility Of the railways greater than eve
before while the productive efficiency OF the employe
ia the years 1918 1919 and 1920 less than in 1871
even in 1916.
The physical facilities Of the railways have been pro
vided by the owners The now getting prac
tcay return upon their investment in these facilities
although the productive efficiency Of the facilities in 1872
was greater than before. Since the productive EN-
r cheney Of the facilities has shown a steady increase
while the productive efficiency OF the employees has show
decrease the members Of the Senate Committee ma
wen the labor leaders why those who have provide
l. the facilities should continue to be denied retur
upon their capital they received 1916 and 1911 Will
the employees should the abor leaders contend cor
tinue be paid twice high they received
is those years.