The New York herald., 1922-10-30
Continued from First Page.

sorbed in large part by increased effi-
cheney of the men and by managerial
ability.
Pointing out that Mr.. Wharton would.
ignore the provision of the transporta-
tion act directig the labor board to
consider wages paid in other industries
of similar nature In fixing wages. the
supporting opinion declared that those
responsible for the decision considered
this as we'll as other factors set forth
In the law.
Attacking the budget method of de-
termining what should be living wage
the supporting opinion says:
That 1t would be wise and practical
to undertake to establish an arbitrary
standard of living for several millions
Of persons is not apparent. That the
desires and requirements of all men are
equal and alike Is not correct, and that
any committee of experts could set up
an average living standard upon which
q wage scale could be practically based
has not been demonstrated anywhere.
THAT standards Of living are grad
ually improving in this country Is un-
doubtedly true, and this is as 1t should
be. There is no member OF the Labor
Board who does not profoundly desire
improved living conditions for common
labor, but it is our belief that this move
ment must be continued along lines in
dicated by human experience and that
II cannot be consummated in the
twinkling Of an eye by artificial ex-
pedients."
Opinion OF Experts.
Asserting experts testifying for the
maintenance of way organizations ad-
mitted that immediate establishing of
'the living wage" would throw a
ery' and that the board therefore make
only start In that direction at pres
ent the opinion said:
Such proposition is entirely illog-
icaL II the living wage is the Just and
reasonable wage authorized by the
statute II is the duty of the Labor
Board to establish it now. II it is not
the just and reasonable wage COM
manded by law. then it is not the duty
Of the board to adopt 1t now or here
after unless the law be changed"
Adoption of family Of five with one
wage Garner as basis for computing
a living wage also was attacked In the
opinion, which asserted that the last
census showed there were a. persons
in the average family. only IA de-
pendent children. instead OF the three
that the experts before the board took
as a basis. and that there were 1.36
workers instead of one in the family.
Commenting upon government owner
ship if the living wage principle were
established. the opinion said:
"Of course. for those who desire gov
ernment ownership this would be a
quick method Of getting it. for it is a
sure thing that the public would not
stand for the imposition of higher rates
to pay such a deficit"
1t asserted that In the last analysis
the public would pay for the Increased
wages and that most of it would come
from workers in the other Industries.
Commenting on an article by Will
lam Randolph Hearst included in Mr.
Wharton's dissenting opinion, In which
the statement was made that the un-
iustifiable lowering of the shopmen's
wages caused the shonmens strike. the
supporting opinion declared that such a
statement was not important except in
so far as 1t was adopted and indorsed
by n member OF the board
In the Judgment Of the majority of the