Evening star., 1926-05-30

ment-a law conceived by employer
and employe. on whom it is equally
binding to preserve peaceful relations.
Its success, it Is freely admitted by
those who sponsored the measure. is
entirely dependent on the good will
Of the parties involved: no element Of
compulsion can enter into disputed
issues unless there is mutual agree
ment by the disputants: studied effort
was made to steer clear of any harsh
and controversial language i'll writing
the bill: the paramount idea is moral
obligation"
II the law works out successfully.
protecting not only employer and
employe, but the public as well, it
will mean the setting of nota-
BILE example in Industrial harmony,
although, as a matter of facts rail
roads have been remarkably free from
strikes and lockouts.
Public Watching Result.
If it fails, proponents of law
with teeth" who were beaten in
their assaults on the Parker-Wat
| bill, might find more support another
day. although just how much teeth
short of Government ownership
| would be legal in dealing with labor
| questions Is a matter of wide diner
| ence of opinion.
| This very question was brought
sharply to the fore both in the hear
inxs on the new labor plan and In
the debate in Congress preceding its
passage, opponents contending that
| the public was robbed of all protec-
| ton and demanding additional SAFE
| guards.
Particular emphasis was laid on the
! contention that in doing away with
| the Labor Board, which the new act
does. control over wage agreements
was waived, inasmuch as the LABOR
Board presumably was empowered 10
| suspend wage increases Wherever
thew were likely to entail an increase
| in the rates of any carrier. For that
reason the opposition sought TO trans
| fer this power to the Interstate Com
merce Commission.
Legality Is Questioned.
In reply. proponents of the measure
| a asserted. and II was never denied.
| that the Labor Board had never seen
| ft TO exercise this right, and went
| further. and declared that such inter
| ference in a wage agreement Wouid
! not stand a court test anyhow, unoer
| the Supreme Court decision in the
| Adamson law case.
The opposition denied this interpre-
| tatfon of the ruling. and Senator Cur
| tbs, Republican leader in the Senate,
led an unsuccessful fight to get an
| amendment reposing this control or
wages in the /. G. G. just before the
| bill passed the Senate.
The manufacturing interests OF the
| country, which. with a few of the
| railroads, sought to make the law
more stringent than proposed, also
| were defeated in q fight where the
same variance of opinion over the
| Interpretation Of law was in EVIL
| ldence-namely, over proposal TO
summon witnesses and require the
| production of records when tempo
rary emergency board was called -
investigate threatened strikes.
| An emergency board would be
created by the President whenever
! the Board of Mediation. which the
| new law sets up. is unable to effect
| a settlement, and the disputants re-
| fuse to arbitrate. When the emer-
| gency group goes into the case, and
/ decides where the fault lies. its md
ings are to be made public, that the
country may know who Is RESPONSE
BILE.
Wanted More Information.
| Those demanding that these in
vestigators have access to any Wit
| nesses and documents desired. de-
clared that otherwise their operations
would be curtailed and their findings
amount to little or nothing. They
pointed to a section of the transpor-
| tation act in which this right was
also reposed in the Labor Board and
said it, should be transferred to the
| prospective investigative bodies.
| Once again they were met with the
contention that a purely investigatlve
body had power neither to subpoena
witnesses nor require the production
Of records, according to supreme
Court decisions in Federal Trade Com
mission cases. Whether the Labor
Board actually had that power also
was disputed, as that section OF the
TRANSPORTATION act is before the. Su-
preme Court for Interpretation right
now in a suit instituted by the
brotherhoods. This case will die now
| that the Labor Board goes out OF
business, but 1t leaves another POSI-
BILE angle for restrictive legislation
II golden rule" principles fail.
These two items-wage regulation
| and subpoenaing of witnesses and
reouisition of documents-were the
| center Of the principal fight on the
new bill, inasmuch as there was little
| otherwise left for salvage from title
8 Of the transportation act. creating
| the Labor Board, which had been
stripped of its compulsory mediation
and arbitration power by the Supreme
| Court.
Full Victory for Bill.
Consequently. it was a clear-cut
! victory for those behind the Parker
Watson bill when they got through
a measure freeing them from the
possibility Of these restrictions, and
also overrode opposition that would
| have set out in stronger language-in
fact, would have written compulsion
into-the section Of the new law de-
signed to provide that for a period of
60 days. when strikes threaten, a
status quo must be maintained be-
! tween employer and employe-in
other words, that this period Of
grace" must be allowed by both sides
| to settle their troubles before break
ing Off negotiations.
These three objects of attack vir-
tually marked the extent Of the efforts
Of its opponents to change the text of
F., the new measure as drawn by group
| Of railroad presidents. on the one
| hand, headed by Gen. w. w. After
bury Of the Pennsylvania lines and
| the representatives of all the railroad
| unions, whose chairman was u. B.
Robertson, president of the Brother
hood Of Locomotive Firemen and
! Enginemen. Consequently, it Is not
| unlikely that the same three issues
| again would bob up IL the Parker
| Watson measure fails of it's purpose.
! inasmuch as those who fought for
them consider them potentially power
| full weapons II it becomes necessary to
use force to maintain industrial peace.
| All the railroad unions and more
| than 80 per cent of the country's
railroads Joined in pushing the new