, 1922-06-17

Continued from PAGE n
render resort to a strike unnecessary.
II this tribunal created I determine
such wage admits that under exist
ing circumstances it cannot fulfill this
function. obviously the employees must
use such power as they have To influ-
ence the labor market which is hence
forth to be the determining factor In
their wages
THAT is to say II the board makes
such admission. the employees must
strike.
proceed to emove the If and to assert
sion which renders a strike necessary.
49,
Not only do the minority step down
from the judicial position, which they
occupy, TO advise y STRIFE, but they
obviously distort and m~isconstrue the
language Of the majority in order TO
provide the condition which they pro
nounce n justification.
This is not the only place in the
dissenting opinion where the sugges-
ton is made to the employees to strike.
AS a matter OF fact. the entire dis
senting opinion constitutes a strained
and exaggerated effort to inflame the
employees by the belief that they have
been grossly outraged by this deci-
sion.
"A fair statement of tho facts will
convince any disinterested man that
no injustice a been done to these
employees by the present decision and
thai the decrease in their wages is
conservative and is based upon the
law and the evidence"
Declaring that the minority savage
ly attacked statements quoted from
former decisions by the board in which
relevant circumstances referred to
in the transportation act were consid-
cred in wage increases, the majority
members asserted that cit would APP
pear tina the relevant circumstances"
wero to be considered by the present
dissenting members in relation only
to wage increases but not decreases.
The statement then went into the
controversy over theoretical living
standards and the minority'S charges
that the year 1917 was an unfair year
to adopt as a basis or a starting point
in the consideration of wages of rail.
way labor.
The d~issenters are well aware that
the wage reports of this board have
begun with the pear 1917 and both
of them have twice concurred in this
arrangement the statement cons
tinued.
Statistics from the bureau OF labor
and the interstate commits
sion on living costs and standards in
1915, a year which the dissenters said
was a fair basis. were quoted by the
majority members, who, after a
lengthy presentation, said the standard
of living for clerks under the rates
prescribed by the decision is 12.1 per
cent above 1915.
1T certainly affords grounds fol
satisfaction and encouragement rath
er than for inflammatory appeals fol-
Strikes the statement said.
Recognition of budgets proposed by
the minority would result in the loss
of hundreds of millions of dollars &c
members continued
This shortage would have had to be
paid by some form of taxation on the
public. presumably freight rates
which would have added to the bur
uGIlS VI every inulNluudi III inc Nouh
try, rich and poor" they said.
ut is well to remember" the state
ment continued, that the time will
never come in this or any other cou
try when the ordinary rules of common
sense and business, call them econom
ic laws il you wish, a Do absolutely
ignored in the conduct of any indus
try. The latest instance in which
these laws have been thrown over
board an replaced by %fine-spun social
istic theories both in railway and other
industries. is found in Russia, and the
result there is not one that this cou
try desires to emulate.
1.-THE minority are sowing some OF
the tiny seeds that have germinated
and biossomed into industrial anarchy
in Russia when they make such state
ments as this: They (the economic
laws) are simply a description of the
way in which business and industry
has worked 10 date, and 1t has worked
out very badly for human life.
ut will DO readily conceded h a our
social and industrial system kas not