President Daniel Willard of the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad, known for his fair treatment of his employees, was chosen by the roads.The Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, the Commissioner of Labor, and the presiding judge of the United States Commerce Court designated the following members of the tribunal: Oscar S.Straus, former Secretary of Commerce and Labor, chairman; Albert Shaw, editor of the Review of Reviews;Otto M.Eidlitz, former president of the Building Trades Association; Charles R.Van Hise, president of the University of Wisconsin; and Frederick N.Judson, of the St.Louis bar.
After five months of hearing testimony and deliberation, this distinguished board brought in a report that marked, it was hoped, a new epoch in railway labor disputes, for it recognized the rights of the public, the great third party to such disputes.
It granted the principle of standardization and minimum wage asked for by the engineers, but it allowed an increase in pay which was less by one-half than that demanded.In order to prevent similar discord in the future, the board recommended the establishment of Federal and state wage commissions with functions pertaining to wage disputes analogous to those of the public service commissions in regard to rates and capitalization.
The report stated that, "while the railway employees feel that they cannot surrender their right to strike, if there were a wage commission which would secure them just wages the necessity would no longer exist for the exercise of their power.It is believed that, in the last analysis, the only solution--unless we are to rely solely upon the restraining power of public opinion--is to qualify the principle of free contract in the railroad service."** The board recognized the great obstacles in the way of such a solution but went on to say: "The suggestion, however, grows out of a profound conviction that the food and clothing of our people, the industries and the general welfare of our nation, cannot be permitted to depend upon the policies and dictates of any particular group of men, whether employers or employees." And this conviction has grown apace with the years until it stands today as the most potent check to aggression by either trade unions or capital.
While yielding to the wage findings of the board, P.H.Morrissey vigorously dissented from the principle of the supremacy of public interest in these matters.He made clear his position in an able minority report: "I wish to emphasize my dissent from that recommendation of the board which in its effect virtually means compulsory arbitration for the railroads and their employees.Regardless of any probable constitutional prohibition which might operate against its being adopted, it is wholly impracticable.The progress towards the settlement of disputes between the railways and their employees without recourse to industrial warfare has been marked.There is nothing under present conditions to prevent its continuance.We will never be perfect, but even so, it will be immeasurably better than it will be under conditions such as the board proposes."The significance of these words was brought out four years later when the united railway brotherhoods made their famous coup in Congress.For the time being, however, the public with its usual self-assurance thought the railway employee question was solved, though the findings were for one year only.** The award dated back to May 1, 1912, and was valid only one year from that date.
Daniel Willard speaking for the railroads, said: "My acceptance of the award as a whole does not signify my approval of all the findings in detail.It is intended, however, to indicate clearly that, although the award is not such as the railroads had hoped for, nor is it such as they felt would be justified by a full consideration of all the facts, yet having decided to submit this case to arbitration and having been given ample opportunity to present the facts and arguments in support of their position, they now accept without question the conclusion which was reached by the board appointed to pass upon the matter at issue."A comparison of these statements shows how the balance of power had shifted, since the days when railway policies reigned supreme, from the corporation to the union.The change was amply demonstrated by the next grand entrance of the railway brotherhoods upon the public stage.After his victory in the Western territory, Chief Stone remarked: "Most labor troubles are the result of one of two things, misrepresentation or misunderstanding.Unfortunately, negotiations are sometimes entrusted to men who were never intended by nature for this mission, since they cannot discuss a question without losing their temper....It may be laid down as a fundamental principle without which no labor organization can hope to exist, that it must carry out its contracts.No employer can be expected to live up to a contract that is not regarded binding by the union."The other railway brotherhoods to a considerable degree follow the model set by the engineers.The Order of Railway Conductors developed rapidly from the Conductors' Union which was organized by the conductors of the Illinois Central Railroad at Amboy, Illinois, in the spring of 1868.In the following July this union was extended to include all the lines in the State.In November of the same year a call to conductors on all the roads in the United States and the British Provinces was issued to meet at Columbus, Ohio, in December, to organize a general brotherhood.
