INTERSTATE COMMERCE ON RAILROADS. 221 same feature of penalties with which we are here confronted, and there has been no enforcement of the law. Is that right? Mr. STONE. I think so. Mr. Escн. Won't we be able to enforce the law? That is the point. Mr. STONE. I question very much if we could. I would not want to go on record as saying that this Government could not enforce a law. I am not ready to fly in the face of the Government and say, "If you do pass that, you can not enforce it." The enactment of law which is not enforced has a tendency to make men lose their regard for the law. The effect of that, I think, is bad. Gentlemen, I think this will be of interest to you. Here is what happened in connection with the enforcement of the Canadian law: During an investigation of a strike of the Dominion Coal Co. they had a board of conciliation and mediation appointed, and while the board was sitting the Dominion Coal Co. was building miles and miles of 8-foot fences and stringing wires, charged with high electrical currents, contact with which would immediately cause death. That is what they were doing in their struggle against the organized labor. And what did the employees do during those 60 days? They dug coal. They worked. These men raised over 400,000 tons of coal during that time, and at the end of 60 days a large number of strike breakers had been brought in. When the board handed down' its findings, they were in favor of the men; but the strike breakers were there and ready to go to work, and the employees who had been mediating were told there were no jobs for them. Anyhow, they used the 60 days getting ready, regardless of whether they lost the case or not. Mr. BARKLEY. Would there be any way of preserving the statu quo during an investigation? Mr. STONE. I do not think so. There are many ways of putting pressure on men. For example, men would be called up from time to time before the officials under whom they worked. They would be told that their record was fairly good, but that they had been shown leniency on one or two occasions, and that these had been overlooked on those occasions, but that in the future they could not expect any leniency. Another thing, as soon as he was out on his run they would go to his wife and say, "Your husband has voted to go out on strike; you and your children are going to lose your home, and you will never have a job again." All that kind of pressure is put upon the men. It makes anarchists out of respectable citizens. On the other hand, the railroads put on men whom they would not otherwise employ. They put on men who have been discharged; they put on men who are drunkards; they put on men who have been convicted of almost every crime. All of these men have been reinstated, whereas 30 days before the strike they could not have gotten a job with any railroad. They put on men they would not have even allowed to ride on their trains 30 days before the strike was called. It is a well-known fact that common drunks were put back on-restored to service with the railroads. Mr. ESCH. What would you recommend in the number of men on the board? Do you think there ought to be four on a side? Mr. STONE. That does not matter. It does not matter one way or the other whether there are three or only two. Or there may be four 222 INTERSTATE COMMERCE ON RAILROADS. on one side and four on the other. It doesn't make any difference one way or the other. Mr. Escн. It might make a difference if the board's members were equally divided on the issue. Mr. STONE. Yes. It does not make any difference to us. Mr. Escн. Do you think the board's findings ought to be final? -Mr. STONE. Even under the Canadian law the award of the board is not binding. Public opinion is depended upon to put it into effect. Mr. Escп. Would you have any time limit prescribed? Mr. STONE. No; I do not think so. I think, if the award of the board was published, as to their findings, that would be all right. I think, in that case, if the findings were published, the men would have to have a mighty strong case to go in the face of those findings and go out on a strike. Public opinion is a strong factor, whoever makes it, or however it is made; and you would have to have a mighty good case in court to go in the face of public opinion. Mr. ESCH. In view of the great public interest that is always involved in a strike over a large area, would you favor the Government exercising any influence or control over the judgment of this board, as, for instance, a review by, say, the Interstate Commerce Commission? Mr. STONE. No; absolutely no. The Interstate Commerce Commission has got more business now than it can take care of without undertaking to review these wage questions. Mr. EscH. Would you make it a duty of any other governmental body? Mr. STONE. NO. If the board is going to be a board of messengers only, it is better not to have them. If the board is going to be any good, you will have to give it some power. Mr. Escн. Oh, there is always an appeal. Mr. STEPHENS. If this board's decision is not final, there would be a temptation, would there not, for them not to conclude it, but to pass it on to the court of appeals, whatever that body was? Mr. STONE. That would be the natural sequence that would follow; yes. I do not advocate the board, you understand. I would much prefer to see no board, but I would prefer a board to this bill as a substitute measure wholly and solely. Mr. BARKLEY. Suppose there was no award? Suppose there was a division on the question? Mr. STONE. The majority should rule. Mr. BARKLEY. Suppose that they stood three to three. Then what would happen? What would you suggest then-if there could not be a majority or a unanimous verdict? Mr. STONE. I can not believe that six men, if they were entrusted with the welfare of the transportation service of this country, would find themselves in any such a situation. I do not think that any such a situation could arise. Mr. BARKLEY. You know that the Supreme Court of the United States renders a great many decisions, important decisions. by a divided vote, do you not? Mr. STONE. Yes. Mr. BARKLEY. The reason is that they have an odd number on it, and there can not be a tie. INTERSTATE COMMERCE ON RAILROADS. 223 Mr. STONE. Yes. But the questions with which they deal are fine, legal, technical questions. The questions confronting us here are different. They are questions of working conditions and wages, which the railroad men understand and the board officials would understand. Mr. BARKLEY. Do you believe that if either side had severed their relation either side, now-that they would be able to get nearer together on a solution than if they had retained their relations? Mr. STONE. Oh, much better. I believe that is right. I think so, because if a man still maintains allegiance to the railroads he goes back to the railroad and to his job. Mr. STEPHENS. If there was a tie on this board, it would not last long probably, because it is a mere matter of time, of wages, which could be compromised; and that would be infinitely cheaper than a strike on either side, wouldn't it? Mr. STONE. I am satisfied they would find some common middle ground to agree upon. If you did not, you would be just where you are to-day. We have a law enacted by the Federal Government, and yet we can not get it enforced. Mr. BARKLEY. There is no compulsion to carry it out? Mr. STONE. No. They talk about going into court; it has been talked of by some of going into the courts to enforce it. It is impossible for the individual to go into a court and sue, because he would be discharged. Mr. BARKLEY. Suppose the board did tie? It is only an opinion. Mr. STONE. Yes. Mr. BARKLEY. It is not enforced by the court? Mr. STONE. No. Mr. BARKLEY. Does your organization advocate going into the court and force a decision? Mr. STONE. No; it never has. Mr. MONTAGUE. What organization do you represent? Mr. MONTAGUE. You represent that? Mr. STONE. Yes. Mr. Sheppard represents, as its acting president, the Order of Railway Conductors. Mr. Lee is president of the Railroad Trainmen. W. S. Carter is president of the Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen. Mr. MONTAGUE. Am I justified in inferring from your statement and from the statement of Mr. Lee, I believe, and another gentleman who appeared here Mr. STONE (interposing). Mr. Lee and Mr. Carter appear here. Mr. MONTAGUE. Yes-that these four organizations would rather have all these matters left to private agreement rather than to public intervention? Mr. STONE. Yes, sir; much rather. Mr. BARKLEY. Who composes the Order of Railway Trainmen? Mr. STONE. The Order of Railway Trainmen is made up—I am just speaking from secondhand knowledge, but this is what I understand-I think they have approximately 142,000 members. Of these about 32,000 are in the switching service, switching in yards: about 15,000 are conductors, and the rest are flagmen or brakemen-train men. 224 INTERSTATE COMMERCE ON RAILROADS. Mr. BARKLEY. The Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen are made up of-how are they made up? Mr. STONE. The Locomotive Firemen are made up of some 90,000 members-15,000 engineers, and the rest are firemen, with the exception of a number who are hostlers. In our organization we have nobody but engineers. Mr. ESCH. That organization you last spoke of was the Order of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen? Mr. STONE. Yes. Mr. Escн. You do not have any engineers in that? Mr. STONE. Yes; 15,000. Mr. ESCH. In your own organization of locomotive engineers you have all engineers? Mr. STONE. Yes. There are men working under our contracts on most of the railroads of the country who are not members of any one of the four organizations. They are not members of the organizations. We handle their grievances, however, and tend to their matters. But they are not members of the organizations. They do not pay us a cent. Some we can not get, and some of them we would not have. Mr. ESCH. Can a man belong to both organizations? Mr. STONE. An engineer may belong to the firemen and engineers both. Mr. MONTAGUE. If there is no other question, I would like to ask what is the status of the hearing, Mr. Sims. Mr. SIMS. I wanted to invite the chairman in just as soon as Mr. Stone gets through. Mr. STONE. I am through, sir. Mr. DILLON. One more question, if you please. Did you or the brotherhood men gain anything in securing the passage of this Adamson law? Mr. STONE. The brotherhood did not secure the passage of this law. They did not want it. Mr. DILLON. Do you think they are the gainer for it? Mr. STONE. I would prefer to answer that after the Supreme Court has passed upon it. However, I do not want to evade the question. That is my position. Mr. DILLON. Were you correctly quoted in the papers by saying, some time in the latter part of October, I think it was, that you did not understand what the Adamson law was? Mr. STONE. That, unfortunately, was sent out from my office in my absence. There was a mistake made in it. What they meant to convey was we did not know how it would be applied to our schedule. I am responsible for its being sent out. Mr. DILLON. I just wanted to know if it was authentic. Mr. STONE. It was sent out in my absence. I do not think we know how the Adamson law will be applied, but we do know what President Wilson and Judge Adamson, who drafted the bill, intended it should be, when it was drafted into a bill. Mr. SIMS. Are you all through, Mr. Stone? Mr. STONE. Yes, sir. Mr. WILLS. Mr. Chairman. I would like to ask Mr. Doak to make a suggestion which he has spoken to me about. Mr. SIMS. All right. Mr. HAMILTON. Will you wait a moment, please? I just want to ask one question. Mr. SIMS. All right. Mr. HAMILTON. All right; go ahead. I will not ask it. STATEMENT OF W. N. DOAK, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE OF THE BROTHERHOOD OF RAILROAD TRAINMEN. Mr. DOAK. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I did not intend to appear before this committee at all, inasmuch as I consumed some considerable time before the Senate committee, and its hearings have been printed, and you can see readily what my position was there. However, since that time I have secured some information relative to the operation of the Lemaux Act in Canada which, I think, would be of material benefit to the gentlemen of the committee in considering this question, inasmuch as there are certain features of this bill, the proposed bill, that were copied after the Lemaux Act. Mr. SIMS. Will you prepare that accurately and fully and submit it with your remarks, so that we can study it? Mr. ĎOAK. That was exactly what I requested permission to do. I wanted permission to make that statement. I do not want, however, to ask you to continue the hearings just to hear me; and I will file such a statement to-morrow and let it go into the record. Mr. SIMS. Very well. As pointed out here to-day, the purpose of the meeting here at this time was to hear Mr. Stone and Mr. Sheppard, who were unable to reach us last week. We were sitting merely to hear them. Mr. DOAK. I appreciate that fact, sir. Mr. SIMS. If you will just prepare the matter you have, it will be not only of more value to us to have it written, but it will save our time now. If you will hand it in, we will print it. Mr. DOAK. That is the request I wish to make. The reason I have not had it ready now is that I only got it yesterday. Mr. SIMS. It will be very much more satisfactory for you to hand it in in that form and let it be incorporated in the record. Mr. DOAK. All right. Thank you. Mr. SIMS. Other engagements prevented the chairman from being here to-day, and he will look into your statements when he has an opportunity. Mr. DOAK. All right. Thank you. Mr. STONE. I want to thank the committee for the consideration you have shown me. Mr. SIMS. We have been very glad to hear you. Mr. CowLES. May I have just one word, Mr. Chairman? Mr. ADAMSON. Mr. Cowles, the committee has made a program, and have they finished the program. If you have a matter to present and would like to submit it for printing in the record you may do so. Mr. CowLES. I would like to submit one, sir. I am plainly very much interested in the proposition of Government ownership. Mr. ADAMSON. We are not considering that here. 79098-17-15 |