Fitzgerald leader enterprise and press. (Fitzgerald, Ben Hill County, Ga.) 1921-1964, 1922-04-13
Brotherhoods Present Memorial OIL
A. B. & A. Situation

An address and memorial to the At
torney General of the United States.
the Interstate Commerce Commission
The Railway Labor Board, the Sena-
tors and Representatives from Georgia
and Alabama, and to Hon. Albert B,
Cummins, Senator from Iowa. author
'ot the Transportation Act of 1920.
committee composed Of represent
latlves from the several brotherhoods
OF railway employees, charged by the
rules and usages of their respective or
CARNATIONS with the duty of extending
mutual help to members of their sew.
eral orders who may find themselves
unfortunately forced into strike, and
minlsterlig to the needs of the families
OF such strikers, which committee is
now sitting in Atlanta and has been so
engaged for year, feel that it is their
duty now to bring to the attention of
the proper officers of the Government
OF the United States certain facts
which they conceive, involve wrong
both to the strikers and to the Gov
e-1ment, as well as the country, and
to present their respectful remons-
trance
The Atlanta, Birmingham & Allan
tic Railway lies in Georgia and Alaba-
ma. Prior to the 18th of February,
1921 the President of the owning and
operating company desired to reduce
the wages of the employees, but was
unwilling to comply with the law of
the land by submitting to the Railroad
Labor Board the determination of
what was just and reasonable scale
OF wages, as required by the Trans
portalion act.
1t was the opinion of the employees
that whatever embarrassment confront
ed the company was due, not to any in
herant conditions affecting trade and
industry, but to the initial reckless and
unconscionable financial methods en-
ployed in its construction and capital
lzatlon, and to its then current bad
management. They caused it to be
known to the company and to the
Railroad Labor Board that they were
prepared to submit to and abide by
any impartial judgment as to what
was a reasonable and just scale of
wages, and the Labor Board thereup-
on made known to the company that
1t was willing to conduct such an in
curry, if the company would submit
to the law and take the preliminary
essential to the Boards Jurisdiction.
This the company refused to do,
and it was then and is now, the opin-
ion of the employees, now concurred
IN by their committee that the COM
pany's unwillingness to face an i'm
partial inquiry arose from its con-
seriousness of being in the wrong.
On February Is, 1921 a trust COM
pany claiming to be a creditor of the
road made application to the District
Court of the United States for the ap-
pointment of a receiver. The alleg-
ed indebtedness was not due and was
secured by abundant collateral We
are quite sure that, if this suit was not
collusively brought, it was at least
brought with the previous knowledge
and consent of the railroad company
Indeed on the very day the bill was
filed, the company answered and con-
scented, and there is every reason to
believe that the step taken was not
made necessary by any need or desire
for the protection of the property, and
was not in the interest of economical
administration, and that the parties
knew at the time that it would great
ly increase expenses by involving the
road in the necessity for paying out
attorneys fees, receivers fees, mas
ters fees, court costs, and the like,
that were entirely unnecessary. It was
rlanifestly intended to enable the
company to evade those provisions OF
the Transportation Act, which were
intended by its author for the preser-
walton of industrial peace. 1t was no
doubt expected that the added expen-
ses growing out Of the the receiver
ship could be more than offset by a
reduction at the other end of the scale
at the expense of labor.
1t was the theory of the parties nom
inallv litigant that the requirements
of the Transportation Act would not
be construed to apply in the case OF
a road operated by a receiver under
the appointment of a court. Whether
they were ignorant of the Mediation
and Cancellation act of 1918, prohib-
iting a Receiver from reducing wages
without hearing, or whether they
merely expected to withhold that
knowledge from the court, we can not
know; but it is certain that the re-
ceiver did Immediately apply, ex parte
to the court, and secure an order fol
the reduction of wages and that he
did not call to the courts attention the
provisions of law referred to.
Just before the application was made
for a receiver, the President of the
railroad company resigned. A receiver.
ship was allowed February 18th, 1921
and the ex-president was appointed
and this was the officer who secured
the order reducing wages.
The employees were not skilled II
the niceties of law. They knew thai
they had the assurance OF the Govern.
ment of their country that their wage:
should not be reduced without cause
shown and an opportunity to be hearC
and they knew that their wages were
reduced without such Nearing, anc
they walked out.
When the attention of the court wa!
drawn to the matter, he very candid
ly, promptly and justly declared tina
the order was improvidently granted
and offered to afford the employees F;
hearing. They were quite ready anC
willing to enter upon the investigation
but felt it prudent to first make in
quiry in court, in due and proper form
as to what their status would be
the conclusion of such a hearing.
When it was authoritatively determin
ed as insisted upon by the receiver anC
ex-president, that a restoration o
the wage scale would not insure t.
their benefit but only to the benefi
of those who had taken their places