Arbitration Board Selected to

Handle B. of L. E. Demands. Chief Justice White of the United States Supreme Court, Chas. P. Neill, Commissioner of Labor, and Judge Knapp of the Commerce Court, have selected the board of arbitration that is to settle the differences between the eastern railroads and the B. of L. E.

The board consists of Oscar Straus, former Secretary of Commerce and Labor, who will serve as its chairman; Dr. Albert Shaw, editor of the American Review of Reviews; Otto Eidlitz, former chairman of the Building Trades Employers' Association of New York; Frederick N. Judson, lawyer, of St. Louis; Dr. Chas. R. Van Hise, president of the University of Wisconsin; Daniel Willard, president of the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad, and P. H. Morrissey, a former grand master of the B. of R. T. Messrs. Willard and Morrissey were selected by the railroad managers and the B. of L. E. respectively.

Arbitration of this controversy was brought about through mediation under the Erdman act.

Industrial Courts for Workingmen.

Throughout Europe, particularly in France, Germany and Switzerland, industrial courts are established, in which the grievances of workmen are satisfactorily settled without the excessive costs which characterize court procedure in the United States. These courts are formed for the purpose of meeting the needs of workingmen who frequently feel that they are the victims of injustices and impositions at the hands of employers, none of them individually, perhaps, worth the expense of an ordinary suit at law, but in the aggregate causing much bitterness and unrest. To meet this situation industrial courts are made easy of approach, proceedings are swift and informal, fees and expenses are reduced to a minimum, a lawyer's services are unnecessary, and in some cases even forbidden, and a persistent effort is made to bring the contestants to an agreement rather than to impose upon them a formal decision. Their jurisdiction is limited to cases between employers and workingmen arising out of their labor contract.

These courts have been found to work out splendidly in the interests of both employer and employe. In general the courts consist of judges who are themselves employers and workingmen, elected in each case by their own class. In France half the judges are employers and half workingmen; in case of a deadlock a justice of the peace may be called upon to give the deciding vote, but this is very rarely necessary. In Germany the employer and workingmen members of the court are equal in number, but a president is added, who must be neither an employer nor a worker, and who is usually chosen from among the public officials. In Switzerland a third type of court is found, in which the president is a judge of the civil court, and the employers and workers, who are elected in equal numbers, act only as advisers. In all three countries the judges are chosen from different trades, so that each court contains experts familiar with the details of nearly every occupation over which its jurisdiction extends. This fact does much to strengthen the confidence of the workThe courts make special provision for settlement by conciliation. In France each case comes, first before the conciliation board, composed of one employer and one workingman judge, who every means to bring about a voluntary agreement between the parties. If they fail, the case goes to the full court, which in its turn tries to effect a reconciliation rather than to give a formal decision. More than half the cases brought in France are settled by conciliation. In Germany the president alone acts as a conciliator, hearing the case by himself on its first appearance, and letting it pass on to the full court only in case he

ers.

use

employers. The great majority of cases brought before the courts have to do with disputes concerning wages. Cases wherein workers are discharged without due notice being given also form a large percentage of them.

In cases where the amounts involved are larger than usual, appeals may be made to the ordinary courts. The establishment of these courts was not viewed with favor by the employers at first, but after giving the system a test it was found to work out well to all concerned. In Germany the industrial courts also act as boards of arbitration in collective disputes, and have attained notable success in this line, especially in Berlin. In Geneva collective disputes which can not be adjusted by voluntary agreement are settled by the industrial court, usually without any stoppage of work. The courts are specially qualified to handle collective disputes, as they already possess the confidence of both sides, they have special facilities for knowing of disagreements before they break out into actual warfare, and their members are skilled through constant practice in conciliation. The German courts, moreover, are frequently called upon to help in forming trade agreements between employers and workers. Comparison with American methods of adjusting such differences shows that we are not as advanced in this particular as our European neighbors, although in recent years considerable progress has been made in the United States and Canada along the lines of settlement of labor disputes by means of boards of conciliation and arbitration.

The recent convention of the B. of L. E., held at Harrisburg, Pa., adopted a plan whereby a voluntary pension association could be put in operation (a department by itself), which must be selfsustaining. The plan provides for pensions varying from $25.00 to $60.00 a month according to the length of time the beneficiary has paid into the pension association.

sible for parties to argue their own cases, and thus a lawyer's fees are eliminated. It is stated that the workers are more inclined to use these courts than are the

In Great Britain no employer is allowed to engage any child under 14 years of age in shoe factories, and all

children under 16 years obtaining employment are obliged to pass a medical examination. The employer is compelled by law to notify the medical examiner appointed by the government immediately upon employing the child. The cost of such examination is paid by the employer. About the same percentage of

child labor is found in the British as in the American shoe factories, and they fill like positions.

Railroad Accidents in United States During the Quarter Ending De

cember 31, 1911.

The number of persons killed in train accidents during the months of October, November and December, 1911, as shown in reports made by the railroad companies to the Interstate Commerce Commission under the "accident law" of May 6, 1910, was 242, and of injured, 4,706. Accidents of other kinds, including those sustained by employes while at work, by passengers in getting on or off cars, by persons at highway crossings, by persons doing business at stations, etc., by trespassers, and others, bring up the total number of casualties, excluding "industrial accidents," to 22,682 (2,726 killed and 19.956 injured). The total number of collisions and derailments in the quarter now under review was 3,346 (1,426 collisions and 1,920 derailments), of which 244 collisions and 215 derailments affected passenger trains. The damage to cars, engines, and roadway by these accidents amounted to $2,893,948. Collisions and derailments which caused no death or personal injury and which caused not over $150 damage to the property of the railroad are not figured.

Important Safety Device Decision.

The following decision under the safety appliance act was recently rendered in the United States Circuit Court

of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in the case of the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Co., plaintiffs in error, vs. United States of America, defendant in

error.

In a prosecution under the safety appliance act the court held:

(a) That it is immaterial whether the lowering of a drawbar was caused by the sagging of the drawbar from the

frame or the sagging of the entire frame, and the statute is violated when the low drawbar resulted from the breaking of a drawbar remained securely attached was king-pin whereby the frame to which the lowered.

(b) That the provision of the safety appliance law for the engineer's control of the train by means of air brakes is not limited to "road trains;"

(c) That Congress, in requiring a train to be "so equipped with power or train brakes that the engineer on the locomotive drawing such train can control its speed without requiring brakemen to use the common hand brake for that purpose," employed the word "brakeall men whose duties in connection with men" generically as including any and the train oblige them to use the common hand brake in the absence of air brakes.

(d) That Congress intended that the engineer should be able "to control the speed" and bring quickly to a standstill a train moving slowly through a congested region of drawbridges and railroad crossings, as well as a train moving rapidly on a single clear track in the country.

James L. Coleman for plaintiff in error. Robert Dunlap, Lee F. English and

James H. Wilkinson, United States attorney; Harry A. Parkin, assistant United States attorney, and Philip J. Doherty, special assistant United States attorney, for defendant in error.

Before Baker, Seaman and Kohlsaat, Circuit Judges.

OPINION OF THE COURT. Baker, Circuit Judge, delivered the opinion of the court:

Penalties were assessed against plaintiff in error for violation of the safetyappliance act. Points respecting constitutionality have been abandoned. Two matters concerning the application of the statute are pressed as grounds for reversal.

In a train used in interstate traffic plaintiff in error had a car whose drawbar was less than the standard height above the rails. This condition was observed by the Government inspector fifteen minutes before the train left the

yard. Violation of the statute is questioned on the ground that the condition resulted, not from any defect in the drawbar itself or in its attachment to the frame of the car, but from the breaking of a king-pin whereby the frame to which the drawbar remained securely attached was lowered. But the statute (Sec. 5) provides that "no cars, either loaded or unloaded, shall be used in interstate

traffic which do not comply with the standard above provided for." So it is immaterial whether the lowering was caused by the sagging of the drawbar from the frame or the sagging of the entire frame; and the resulting condition of noncompliance with the standard height would be as observable in the one case as in the other.

are

Less than the required number of cars in the train had air brakes under the control of the engineer. Corwith is an outer Chicago yard, where the incoming trains used in interstate traffic stopped and the cars are distributed upon various tracks. Cars that are destined to plaintiff in error's inner yard at Eighteenth street are assembled at Corwith into a train and moved about eight miles to Eighteenth street over switch tracks, leads and main tracks of plaintiff in error, across a drawbridge and three railroads, at the rate of six to eight miles per hour. Beyond Corwith the trains are under the jurisdiction of the traindispatcher; between Corwith and the Eighteenth street yard, of the yardmas

or

act plaintiff in error argues that this provision for the engineer's control of the train by means of air brakes applies only to "road" trains. But, in our opinion, Congress, in requiring a train to be "so equipped with power or train brakes that the engineer on the locomotive drawing such train can control its speed without requiring brakemen to use the common hand brake for that purpose," employed the word "brakemen" generically as including any and all men, whether specifically known as "conductors" "brakemen" or "yard foremen" or "switchmen," whose duties in connection with the train would oblige them to use the common hand brakes in the absence of air brakes, and intended that the engineer should be able to "control the speed" and bring quickly to a standstill a train moving slowly through a congested region of drawbridges and railroad crossings as well as a train moving rapidly on a single clear track in the country. Interstate cars destined to Eighteenth street did not complete their interstate journey until they reached that point; and the dangers to the men engaged in moving those cars and to the interstate traffic itself were at least as imminent as the dangers on the "road."

These considerations, expressed more at large in Belt Ry. Co. vs.

United

That from and after the first day of January, 1898, it shall be unlawful for any common carrier engaged in interstate commerce by railroad to use on its line any locomotive engine in moving interstate traffic not equipped with a power driving-wheel brake and appliances for operating the train-brake system or to run any train in such traffic after said date that has not a sufficient number of cars in it so equipped with power or train brakes that the engineer on the locomotive drawing such train can control its speed without requiring brakemen to use the common hand brake for that purpose.

Section 2 of the amendment of March 2, 1903, required that 50 per cent. of the cars should be equipped with air brakes and placed under the control of the engineer, and authorized the Interstate Commerce Commission by order to increase the percentage. On the occasion complained of the required percentage was 75.

From the use of the words "run," "speed," and "brakemen" in the original

Labor in Massachusetts.

Complete returns relative to the state of employment for the quarter ending March 30, 1912, from 942 labor organizations in Massachusetts, show that of the entire membership of these organizations, 14.1 per cent. represents the unemployed. This percentage is higher than any corresponding percentage since 1908, according to a report furnished by the Bureau of Statistics, Massachusetts. The figures given represent unemployed for all causes, such as those involved in strikes, lack of work and shortage of material.

The percentage of unemployed owing to lack of work or material represents more accurately the general state of employment prevailing throughout the Commonwealth than the percentage given of unemployed for all other causes, particu

larly when it is understood the initial figures include a large number of strikers. Thus on March 30, 1912, the percentage of organized workpeople who were reported as unemployed on account of lack of work or material was only 5.1 as compared with 6.0 per cent. on December 30, 1911, and 7.5 per cent. on March 31, 1911.

In all branches of transportation the state of employment was remarkably good, the percentage unemployed for the industry as a whole having been only 1.9 as compared with 3.0 on December 30, 1911, and 4.1 on March 31, 1911. Very few of the organized steam and electric railway employes were unemployed for lack of work.

souri, continued.

I say, as I said in the beginning of my remarks, if this bill is postponed until the members of these organizations can have time to advise regarding it among each other and to understand its principles, it will be condemned by substantially a unanimous vote.

I sent this bill to some ten or twelve societies that had wired me, asking me to give it support. With but two exceptions, after examining the measure, they have wired or written asking either that the bill be defeated or that action upon it be postponed.

Now, Mr. President, I want to discuss the bill itself.

Mr. Sutherland: Will the Senator from Missouri permit me to interrupt him?

Mr. Reed: Certainly.

Mr. Sutherland: There were two or three bills introduced in Congress. One bill introduced was called the Sabath bill. Another bill was introduced by Mr. Lewis, a member from Maryland. The bill which Mr. Lewis introduced is what is generally called the Civic Federation bill-that is, it follows the general lines of the Civic Federation bill. A bill was prepared by the American Federation of Labor. Another bill which was prepared is what is called the commission's bill-that is, there were a number of commissioners appointed, one from each State, and they met and held meetings and prepared a bill which they put out. There have been innumerable bills put out. I was chairman of this commission; and until the Senator from

There

any claim agents' convention. never was before our commission any bill suggested by any claim agents' convention. The first draft of the bill which was before our commission I prepared myself, and in preparing it I consulted all the laws that I could find. I went over the English law, the German law, the French law, the various laws that have been presented by many commissions in the United States, the New Jersey law, which has been in operation, the Ohio law, and many others.

Of course, all these laws follow along the same general line. There are two general plans resorted to; one, as we have stated in our report, called the German plan, and the other the English plan. If you follow the English plan, the skeleton of any one of these bills would be pretty much the same. But the bill of the commission, which is presented here, is the commission's bill; there is no one responsible for it except the commission, and any insinuation to the contrary of that is utterly false and unwarranted.

Mr. Rayner: I should like to ask the Senator whether any bill had been presented prepared by these claim agents, because I suppose they had the right to present a bill. Of course it might put a different aspect to the case entirely. But what I should like to ask the Senator from Utah is this: Did the American Federation of Labor present either a bill or a skeleton of a bill?

Mr. Sutherland: Not to us; but their bills were published.

Mr. Rayner: They had a perfect right to do it.