Evening star., 1922-10-30
fore maks only a start in that direc-
ton at present. the opinion said:
Would Keep to Law.

tlon at present. the opinion said:
Would Keep to Law.
Such q proposition Is entirely il
logical. If the living wage is the
just and reasonable wage authorized
by the statute it is the duty of the
Labor Board to establish 1t now. If
1t is not the just and reasonable wage
commanded by law. then II 10 not the
duty OF the board to adopt it nov
or hereafter unless the law be chang
ed"
Adoption of family Of five with
one wage Garner as basis for com
pilins a living wage also was attack
the last census showed there were
~ persons in the average family, bu
IA dependent children instead o.
three that experts before the boarG
took as a basis. and that there were
L36 workers instead Of one in the
family.
Commenting upon tho government
ownership II the living wage prin
cipal was established, the opinion
said:
Public Would Pay.
''Of course, for those who desire
government ownership this would b.
a quick way of getting 1t, for II Is a
sure thing that tho public would no
stand for the imposition of higher
rates to pay such q deficit" 1t as
serted that in the last analysis
creased wages and that most Of IL
would come from workers in Other
Industries.
Commenting on an article by Will
liam Randolph Hearst. included in
Mr.. Wharton's dissenting opinion. in
which the statement was made that
the unjus:Ifiable lowering of the
shopman's wages caused the shop
mems strike, the supporting opinion
declared such a statement was not
important. except that in SO far as
1t was adopted and Endorsed by a
member of the board.
shop Strike Called BIunder.
TN the judgment of the majority of
the board" the opinion continued.
Of the people. the shopmen's strike
was a blunder without any real justi-
f1cation, and that it is said with the
kindliest feelings for the employees
who nave suffer ed most from Its eff
fects. 1t has wrought harm to all
and good 10 none. 1t has burdened
the railways with an unjust expense.
has inflicted great losses upon the
public, especially the food producers.
and HIS resulted in an approximately
S177.52J,5 ,524 loss to the strikers For
all this. the men on strike have won
nothing. Iney nave SdiHeu uO Soii-
cession as to any matter upon which
they struck. For months the strike
has been merely a struggle upon the
part of the men to regain their posi-
tions."
Contrasting the situation Of the
maintenance Of way organization. which
withheld its strike and appealed TO the
board, the opinion asserts the employees
received about s147.e5s.S66 in wages
since July /. which would have been los
had they gone on a strike, and in ad-
dition have received an increase Of
wages of about $40, 900 30 year.
Preferred Two Cents to None.
perhaps there is no better time and
place" the opinion adds, .to emphasize
the belief of a majority of the Labor
Board that railway strikes are utterly
useless ard wasteful. and that the en-
ployes will always gain better results
at the hands Of any tribunal fairly con-
stituted and representative of the peo-
pie than they viii by making war on
the carriers and the public
In addition to the decision and the
dissenting and supporting opinions.
the document contained statement
by W. L. McMenimen, labor member of
the board. as to his rea son for voting
for the 2-cent raise for the trackmen.
He said he favored a larger increase
but voted for the 2-cent raise after the
Labor Board had been in long dead
lock. during each day Of which the men
we're losing about $4,000. and when he
feared that no Increase might be OBJ
tained if the 2-cent raise advocated by
the public group was not accepted.