577. A Meeting Point Within Yard Limits."No. 7 is a first-class train running from Z to A. It received an order as follows:

'Extra 242 East has right over No. 7 S to T.' There is a yard at T but no designated passing track, and extra 242 entered a siding about a mile west of the station at T and remained there expecting No. 7 to come to that switch, which was five telegraph poles inside the yard limits. There is another siding at T station; that is, at the passenger station, where fixed signals are operated. After No. 7 had waited at the station twenty minutes for the extra the conductor flagged until he reached the siding on which the extra was clear. Was No. 7 justified in remaining at T station?"-F. B. A.

Answer. Not having the instructions covering the use of the sidings at T, it is difficult for me to state just what track the extra should have used. The right of the extra, however, expired at the first

entrance switch where an inferior train would take the siding at T, and the right of No. 7 was not restricted until it reached the switch at T, where an eastbound inferior train would take siding on arriving at that station from the west. Most roads require that an inferior train I will take the first switch at all stations, when clearing the time of a superior train, except at such stations where the exact switch is specified.

If there is no special instructions covering this point, and the switch where the extra took siding is the switch which is first reached, and the one which is used by an inferior train, when it is taking siding for a superior train, then the extra was in duty bound to take that siding, and the passenger train had full authority to proceed to that switch and there await the arrival of the extra.

Senator Sutherland of Utah introduced in the U. S. Senate the Exclusive Federal Workmen's Compensation Bill, otherwise known as the Employers' Liability and Workmen's Compensation Bill, and during the discussion on the bill earnestly advocated its passage in its present form.

Many persons would have us believe that Senator Sutherland is interested in promoting the welfare of railroad employes, that he is in fact a friend of American railroad wage-earners.

From the report of the Legislative Committee of the American Federation of Labor appearing in the October issue of the American Federationist we quote the following:

Department of Labor.

"Mr. Sulzer's bill, H. R. 22913, creating a Department of Labor, with a Secre

-6

tary, who shall be a member of the President's Cabinet and who shall have the power of mediation in trade disputes and the right to appoint conciliators in such cases when, in his judgment, it is wise to do so, but shall have no power to enforce his views upon the contending parties. This bill passed the House by unanimous vote on July 17, 1912, and was referred to the Senate Committee on Education and Labor. Senator Borah, of Idaho (chairman), called a meeting of this committee for the consideration of this bill two days after the reference was made to his committee. President Gompers made a very able and lengthy argument before the committee in advocacy of the bill, whereupon the chairman was authorized to report the bill favorably to the Senate, which was done. Senator Borah called up the bill in the Senate on August 6th and asked unanimous consent for its consideration. Senator Sutherland of Utah objected to its consideration. Senator Borah called the bill up on several other occasions, but was unable to get the Senate to consider it."

(629)

From the foregoing it will be observed that Senator Sutherland of Utah objected to the consideration of a bill for the creation of a department of labor with a secretary who would be a member of the President's Cabinet-a bill for the enactment of which organized labor has been earnestly striving for some time.

Again, further along in the same report, we find the following:

Injunction Limitation Bill.

"The Clayton bill, H. R. 23635, was taken up for consideration and passed by the House May 14th, 243 members voting in favor of its passage, 31 members voting against it. This bill was referred to the Judiciary Committee of the Senate, and, in turn, referred to a subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee. The subcommittee is composed of five senators as follows: Root of New York, chairman; Sutherland of Utah, Nelson of Minnesota, Chilton of West Virginia and O'Gorman of New York, A number of hearings have been had by this committee, almost the entire time of the hearings being taken up by the lawyers representing the National Association of Manufacturers, the National Founders' Association, The National Erectors' Association, the AntiBoycott Association, and a number of the large railroad corporations.

"Your Legislative Committee requested Chairman Root to set an hour on July 23d, when the proponents of this bill might be heard. Senator Root agreed to this, but we were subsequently notified that there were some of the members of the subcommittee out of the city, and the hearing would go over until Thursday, July 25th, at 10.30 a. m. Upon the arrival of President Gompers, Congressman William B. Wilson, and other advocates of the measure, we were informed that as the Senate would go into session at 11 o'clock it would be impossible to give much time to the hearings."

Note that Senator Sutherland is a member of the Judiciary Committee considering this Injunction Limitation Bill.

The foregoing ought to disillusion any railroad men who may regard Senator Sutherland as a friend of labor or who

may imagine that his advocacy of the Exclusive Federal Workmen's Compensation Bill was actuated by any friendly interest he has in railroad employes.

Is it not more reasonable and logical to conclude that he is responsible for the incorporation of those provisions in that measure that make it so detrimental to the interests of railroad wage-earners and which render it in its present form so absolutely unacceptable to them?

Result of Ohio Constitutional Election.

Because of the delay in completing the official count we were unable to give the result of the Ohio Constitutional election in the October issue. The official returns show that of the 42 amendments to the Constitution of Ohio proposed by the Constitutional Convention of that State and voted upon by the people at the special election of September 3d last, eight were defeated. We herewith specify the proposals that were rejected and adopted, together with the vote for and against each. We are designating them by the same titles under which they appear in the joint report of the Ohio Constitutional Convention by the Ohio Legislative Boards, commencing on page 391 of our September issue so that our readers can refer to same should they desire a clearer explanation as to the purpose of each. The proposals that were defeated are as follows:

Abolishing the Death Penalty.-The vote on this proposal was 258,706 for and 303,246 against.

Anti-Injunction.-Providing that no injunction be issued in labor disputes except to protect life and property; and persons charged in contempt proceedings with violating such an injunction shall be entitled to a trial by jury. The vote on this proposal was 240,896 for and 257,302 against.

Woman's Suffrage.-Proposing to give women the right to vote. The vote on this proposal was 249,420 for and 336,875 against.

Negro Suffrage.-Proposing to give the negro the right to vote by striking the word "white" from the elective franchise. (While the United States Constitution gives the negro the right to vote, the constitution of the State of Ohio has never been so altered and the proposal to make the change was defeated at the recent election by a majority of 22,958. This, however, does not interfere with the right of the negro to vote in Ohio, as the Constitution of the United States guarantees him that right.) The vote on proposal was 242,735 for and 265,693 against.

this

Voting Machines.-The vote on this proposal was 242,342 for and 288,652 against. Good Roads.-Proposing to permit State Legislature to issue $50,000,000 worth of bonds for a system of intercounty roads,

have been remodeled and modernized to cope with the insurance business. Clerical staffs have been augmented and modern office appliances have been introduced for the keeping and filing of insurance cards for ready reference. Quiet old unions that had never before heard of card indexing, vertical filing, etc., are being rapidly brought up to date in their head office equipment.

Out of this there has arisen a peculiar trade dispute. At Unity House, the magnificent London and national headquarters of the great Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants, a number of additional clerks were enrolled to tackle the more than 100,000 insurance cards which began to suddenly flow in. The union put these male clerks on the payroll for a weekly figure of $7.50 per clerk. It happens that there exists a small union representing clerks and bookkeepers called the National Union of Clerks. This society is represented at the annual trade union congress and endeavors to force the acceptance of a minimum wage of $8.75 per week for bookkeepers and allied workers-generally called clerks in this country. The trade union congress by resolution had apparently accepted this as the proper minimum week's wages for a clerk and the A. S. R. S., represented at the congress meetings, was held to be bound by the resolution. The new clerks therefore put in a demand for the above-mentioned minimum rate and eventually found themselves on the pavement outside the building. Since then they have picketed the union headquarters and the union branches are much divided on the point, some agreeing with the executive and some with the clerks. The quarrel is a particularly unfortunate one and is of course being featured by all the capitalistic newspapers in the country daily, not from any love of course of the lockedout or striking clerks but because it puts a trade union for the moment in an invidious position. The executive of the A. S. R. S. has issued a statement wherein it justifies itself mainly upon the plea that these were temporary not permanent members of the staff and that the men took advantage of their position in the matter to loaf and be impertinent.

The Lancashire cotton trade just now is in an extremely unsettled state. Not only have the Operative Spinners' Amalgamation a serious dispute with the Mas

ters' Federation over the question of bad spinning, but the cardroom workers have taken drastic action in connection with an accident to a mill girl at Oldham which may easily lead to a general lockout if wiser counsels do not prevail. What appears to be a quite ordinary accident is responsible for the new trouble. Some months ago an operative engaged at a spinning mill at Hollinwood, near Oldham, had her head caught in the machinery. This caused her to be idle for about three months, and the Cardroom Workers' Amalgamation applied to the firm on her behalf for compensation. Liability, however, was denied. on the ground, it is alleged, that the operative was injured while committing a breach of the regulations framed by the mill management. The girl, it is said, was cleaning machinery whilst it was in motion, and notices had been posted forbidding this. The officials of the Amalgamation maintain that sufficient time is not allowed the operatives to clean the machinery, and the cleaning has therefore to be done when it is in motion. The Oldham master cotton spinners were approached in connection with the matter, and they supported the firm's contention as to nonliability for compensation.

The operatives' organization has now decided on a strike if the dispute is not settled in the meantime. This action will involve the spinners as well as the cardroom hands at the mill, this united action between the two organizations being secured by an agreement "to mutually assist each other in battling with labor disputes in so far as taking joint action in giving notice to strike work at individual mills whenever the members of either association deem it necessary to take such action in furtherance of their labor interests, such joint action to be subject to certain conditions."

The employers' organization contends that the question at issue is one for the law courts, and decline to convene a joint meeting under the Brooklands agreement. The Federation of Master Cotton Spinners and Manufacturers' Association endorse the action of the Oldham Employers' Association. The union's officials, however, maintain that the Brooklands agreement was drawn up so as to avoid, if possible, all strikes or lockouts. They point to the clause which reads: "The representatives of the employers and representatives of the employed in the pending dispute hereby admit that disputes