St. Paul recorder. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1934-2000, 1952-05-23
by ALICE A. DUNNIGAN

Washington - amp The
U. S. Supreme Court heard argu-
mcnts last week in the case Of
Simon l.. Howard ST. and other
Negro train portcr-brakcmen who
are seeking an injunction to re
strain the St LOuis-San Francis
co Railway Co, and the Brother
hood Of Railroad Trainmrn from
abolishing the transporter" jobs
and hiring white "brakcmcn" 10
replace them.
This is another of the many
fights which Negro workers have
carried on through the courts
since the days Of World War l.
to preserve their employment
rights in the railroad industry
Arguing the case on behalf Of
the porter brakcmen. Atty. Joseph
c. Waddy Of Washington dcscrib-
ed the following situation as true
aiming idliibdh "'lh'in l'i many
years:
Prior to World War ! the rail
road company had a practice
never to employ Negroes at the
same rate Of pay as white work
ers. The railroad used various
means to justify this action, in
GLIDING the title classification Of
Negro employees. Negroes who
did the same work as the white
brakemen were classified as por-
tiers.
After the government took over
the railroads in 1918 II issued an
order stating that Negroes be
paid at the same rate as white
workers doing the same work
Recognizing the government or
der, the BRIT considered the Ne
gro workers as brakemen and
placed them on the same seniority
lists In 1921 when the govern
ment returned the railroads to
private management, the company
upon agreement with the Brother
hood, cut the Negroes pay in half
and reduced their titles from
brakemen to porters.
The porters then filed suit in
court asking that they be per
mitted to maintain their same
rate Of pay retroactive TO the
date of reduction and retain their
same classification. In 1924 the
court ruled against their request
to receive back pay, and left open
the question of Reconsideration,
Two years later according to
Waddy, the four railroad Brother
hoods signed an agreement that
no more Negroes would be hired
as trainmen, bralSemen, flagmen
or firemen on the railroad.
Although Negroes employed on
the railroad were required to per-
form the dual duty of brakemen
and porter, they were classified as
porters. Since the new streamline
trains do not require a great deal
of portering service, approximate
ly 90 per cent of the work of these
Negro employees was that Of
brakemAn's duty.
In 1915 the BRIT entered a con-
tract with the Frisco line saying
that the practice of train porters
performing brakemen work would
be discontinued
In accordance with this agree
ment the railroad company noti-
fled train porters that their Jobs
would be abolished as of April 1,
1915. Contending that such an
agreement is null and void, and
such notices violate the Railway
Labor Act, the Negro brakemen-
porters filed suit in the u. s. Dis
trict court at st. Louis, Mar. 30,
1916.
This court held that the notices
did violate the Railway Labor Act.
and enjoined the Frisco from
abolishing the positions held by
the porters. The court also held
that II had no Jurisdiction TO de-
ternine the other issues involved
in the case, and directed the plain
tiffs to 60 before the National
Mediation Board of the National
Adjustment Board for further
action.
The case was then carried 10 the
Circuit Court Of Appeals which is
sued an opinion Sept. IL, 1851, af-
firming the decree Of the lower
court with respect to the invalid
ity of the notices, and reversed the
decree i'm all other aspects.
The BRIT then brought the case
to the Supreme court for consider
alton.
Here, Waddy, with his associ-
ates, Victor Packman and Henry
ID. Espy, both of st. Louis, called
upon the high court TO decide
whether the BRIT has a right to
use its position, under the Rail-
road Labor Act to destroy the
| AIEYANnEP q rr