The Birmingham age-herald., 1921-03-22
Department of Justice VIII
 Take Handin A., B. & A. Case
ConstitutionaIity of L ab o r Boards Decision Is ChaI- lenged in Brief Filed by Bugg, Who Holds Board Ordered Wages Which Road Can't Pay
By Associated Press


 Atlanta, March 21.-The department of justice will take hand in the Atlanta Birmingham and Atlantic railway wage hearing in federal district court here to- morrow to defend the constitutionality of the Newlands act, it was announced tonight by United States District Attor- ney Alexander.
 That portion of the law providing 2D days notice before reduction of wages was attacked as unconstitutional in brief filed on behalf of the Birmingham Trust and Savings company and Mr. Alexander announced that Attorney Gen. eral Danghefty sad Instructed him to efi Y ter the case for the purpose of upholding the act
 The hearing by which union leaders seek to have Judge $. H. Sibley resclnd his wage reduction order. which pre- cipitated strike March 5, was started last week, but postponed, until Tuesday afternoon.
 Resumption of local freight and pas senger service throughout the Atlanta. Birmingham and Atlantic system, with the exception of the Waycross division, was announced today by B. L. Bugg, re- cever New men are being put to work daily filling the places of strikers it was stated, and full schedules were forecast soon
 Colonel Bugg issued a statement tonight declaring that the United States railway labor board at Chicago 'did not ask nor require the appearance of anyone rep resenting the receiver" at the wage hear ing 1t called for today. Colonel Bugg . lao of a wG1II6 not attend the hearing, and he stated to- night that the board had simply in structed it's secretary to notify the receiver regarding the hearing. The unions announced they had sent two rep resentatives.
 QUESTION CONSTITUTIONALITY
 Chicago, March H.-The constitutional ity of the railroad labor boards decision in the case of the Atlanta, Birmingham and Atlantic railroad was challenged to- day when the board received brief filed by the roads receiver, B. l.. Bugg, formerly president of the roadI The em- ployes were represented at the hearing today by E. P. Curtis, vice president of the Order of Railway Conductors. who 1their action in striking.
 The receiver took the position that the board had ordered wages which the road was financially unable to pay, and that since such situation would have meant confiscation of theg property such rul- ing by the board was 'repugnant 10 the fifth amendment to the constitu- ton and utterly unconstitutional"
 The receiver further argued that he was without the jurisdiction of the board because he was not carrier at the time of the award, and therefore not bound by the wage award of July, lSzo. In fixing the wages of employees, he acted under authority of the United States district court, he declared.
 A wage reduction was placed in eff feet March 1, 1921. by court order after ! dispute between the employees and the -oad had failed of settlement. The main osing $10O.000 a month. It proposed to -educe wages by one-half of the increases granted since December 31, 1917. The ,oard however. ruled that financial lbility to pay was without it's jurisdic, ion and remanded the case for further conference between the carriers and it's employees.
 Subsequently, the road went into the hands of the receiver and the proposed wage cut was made.
 CLAIM JUSTIFICATION
 The employees then went ony strike with | he authority of their international off | ,ers, The strike was called, however, l ,y local employees, the labor represent | stives told the labor board today They | ,cntended that since the road violated hc boards ruling to maintain wages of .he award of 1920 the employees were Justified in withdrawing from the serv- ce. Conferences had been refused them. .hey maintained They declared they | lad complied fully with the transporta- ion act.
 The receiver declared that there was | 10 dispute between himself and the em- ,loyes as .'the employees are glad and f willing to work for the wages he is au- horized to pay under authority of the t urtf.
 This, it was explained. referred to present. employees. a force the receiver declared he was building up "out Of many applicants for employment" | The question before the board resolved | tself Into decision whether the action # the Federal courts had removed the | ase from the Jurisdiction of the board IT whether a conflict of authority had developed. The board would take the natter under advisement members said. nd later publish it's opinion on this uestion.