CORNELL UNIVERSITY LIBRARY 
 
 924 078 686 031 
 
 BRIEF 
 In the Matter of the Arbitration 
 
 between 
 
 The Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers 
 
 Representing the Engineers Employed on the Fifty-two 
 Railways in the Eastern Territory Included in 
 the Concerted Wage Movement 
 and 
 
 The Railroad Officials 
 
 Representing the Railroads in the Same Territory Included 
 
 in the Arbitration Agreement 
 
 1912 
 
 WARREN S. STONE, Grand Chief Engineer, 
 Presenting Case for the Engineers. 
 
 HD 
 5325 
 
 R34 
 1912 
 
THE 
 
 MARTIN P. CATHERWOOD 
 
 LIBRARY 
 
 OF THE 
 
 SCHOOL 
 
 OF 
 
 INDUSTRIAL AND LABOR 
 
 RELATIONS 
 
 AT 
 CORNELL UNIVERSITY 
 
IN THE MATTER OF ARBITRATION 
 
 between 
 
 THE BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE ENGINEERS 
 
 and 
 
 THE EASTERN RAILROADS 
 
 On Engineers' Wages 
 
 Brief on behalf of the Brotherhood of 
 Locomotive Engineers 
 
 There is not a request made by the Brotherhood of Loco- 
 motive Engineers, in the case before you, that asks for the 
 estabHshment of a new principle or one that is not already 
 in effect in other parts of the country. Every rate and every 
 rule has been accepted and agreed to, and our men are working 
 under them today in other parts of the country on railroads 
 where trafific is not so congested, in less populated territory, 
 and where even the possibility of the roads earning revenue 
 is curtailed. 
 
 We believe every request presented is fair and equitable 
 and should not be scaled down, because the labors of these men 
 justly entitle them to these rates. 
 
 Witnesses have testified as to the years of training re- 
 quired to fit themselves for the position of locomotive engi- 
 neer; they have told of the many examinations they are re- 
 quired to pass during these years to become one, and after they 
 reach their goal — of the continued examinations, not only 
 mechanical but physical, that they are required to pass in order 
 to retain their position. You have been told of the high stand- 
 ard of efificiency required, of the many hours the engineer gives 
 of his own time in order to avoid engine failures and make 
 successful trips, and for which they receive no compensation. 
 
 Witnesses have told of the long hours the freight men 
 toil, hours that tax their energies almost beyond the limits of 
 
 
human endurance, hours that are inhuman. You have heard 
 of the long day the switch engineer puts in with never a chance 
 for any rest or recreation. In fact, even on the day shift, he 
 leaves his home before the family is awake and returns at 
 night long after they have gone to sleep, not living — merely 
 existing. 
 
 An important fact that should be taken into considera- 
 tion of these requests is that the hours of service engineers 
 are required to work are unlike all othef trades in that they, 
 with very few exceptions, have no regular hours. Skilled 
 workmen of other classes have regular hours of employment, 
 nearly always in daylight, regular hours for service, for meals, 
 for recreation and for sleep. A locomotive engineer has none 
 of these. He is called two or three hours before the leaving 
 time of his train, is called at any hour of the day or night, in 
 all kinds of weather, and cannot have regular meals or regular 
 sleep, neither do a majority of the men have daylight for their 
 work. With freight engineers, in heavy slow freight service, 
 it is a struggle from one year's end to the other to get the 
 necessary rest in order to equip themselves for the next hard 
 trip, and even on the best passenger runs that only 6 out of 
 every 100 engineers reach, there are always the irregular 
 hours and meals. Even the yard men who are supposed to 
 have regular hours, in a majority of cases work two weeks 
 day-shift, and two weeks nights, alternately. 
 
 It has been proven to you, gentlemen, that the entire 
 responsibility for the speed and handling of the train has in 
 the past few years changed from the train crew to the loco- 
 motive engineer. He handles the train with the air brakes, 
 and is the one responsible man on, the train today, who, by his 
 skill and abiHty makes it possible for a railroad to earn rev- 
 enue and pay dividends. 
 
 You can have the finest railroad in the world, equipped 
 with the best that money can buy, every known safety device, 
 officered by competent men who know their business thor- 
 oughly, every other employee pei-forming every duty required 
 
of him, yet that road does not earn one penny until the en- 
 gineer gets up on the engine, and opens the throttle and starts 
 the ponderous machine, and moves the thousands of tons of 
 freight, and the hundreds of passengers to their destination. 
 So it is the engineer who carries the load of responsibility. 
 That responsibility is increasing each year; each year the pub- 
 lic demands better service; each year examinations become 
 more strict; each year discipline becomes more rigid. There 
 never was a time in the history of the railroad world when as 
 much was required or as much taken out of the individual 
 engineer as now. 
 
 We ask your particular notice of the Engineers' Exhibit 
 No. 1 and the Railroads' Exhibit No. 29. We show the aver- 
 age insured life of the locomotive engineer as being eleven 
 (11) years and seven (7) days. In their Exhibit they show 
 the average term of service of the men employed as twelve 
 and four-tenths (12 4-10) years; the slight discrepancy in the 
 figures being caused by the fact that we take those who have 
 been killed, disabled and died, and they figure their average 
 on the survivors, taking no account of those who have dropped 
 out of service through injury or other cause. (Another rea- 
 son for a sHght discrepancy might be because of the fact that 
 7 per cent of the engineers included in their figures are not 
 members of the B. of L. E.) 
 
 All a man who labors has to sell is his time; it is the en- 
 gineer's whole stock in trade, and from these few years he has 
 to sell he must not only live and maintain his family, but 
 must lay up a competence to take care of them after he is no 
 longer a wage earner. Surely the man who has such a short 
 span of life to sell is entitled to far more than we are asking. 
 
 In addition to the hazard of the occupation is the further 
 hazard of the loss of position, which in other classes of service 
 does not even exist. After a man has spent the best years of 
 his life in the hard labor of fitting himself for the position of a 
 locomotive engineer, to be confronted by the barrier of the age 
 limit standing across life's pathway at middle age is a ques- 
 
4 
 
 tion of vital importance that must be considered in our re- 
 quests. 
 
 On fifty-two per cent of the roads the age Hmit is 45 ; the 
 rest (with the exception of nine) the age limit is 40; of this 
 nine there are three where the age limit is 38. Six roads have 
 no age limit. This means that if from any cause a man is 
 discharged from the service of the Company if he is beyond 
 that age he cannot obtain employment elsewhere. 
 
 In the list of figures submitted by the Railroads, in Ex- 
 hibit 28, only 5.10 per cent of the men in active service are be- 
 yond 60 years of age, clearly showing that with the heavy 
 strain of today and the heavy power and tonnage and con- 
 gested traffic, that men are breaking down much earlier than 
 they did before. 
 
 There are numerous cases where the men are rejected and 
 disqualified from service, and thrown on the scrap pile of com- 
 mercial industry as so much worn out junk, at from 45 to 49 
 
 years of age. 
 
 RAILROAD EXHIBITS. 
 
 We trust you will not be influenced by figures shown in 
 the Railroad Exhibits without a thorough investigation and 
 verification. They are built up to create a wrong impression 
 and the results obtained are unfair and misleading. 
 
 For example: Exhibit 6 shows the Baltimore & Ohio 
 Railway has granted the following increases to their engi- 
 neers '. 
 
 March 1, 1900 5.00 per cent 
 
 April 1, 1902 4.35 per cent 
 
 February 1, 1903 7.35 per cent 
 
 February 1, 1907 10.47 per cent 
 
 April 1, 1910 8.03 per cent 
 
 July 1, 1911 1.96 per cent 
 
 Total 37.16 per cent 
 
 The facts are as follows: 
 
 In 1887 passenger engineers were paid $3.50 per 100 
 miles; today they receive $4.00, $4.10, and $4.25 per 100 miles 
 
— only 40 engines out of a total number of 375 engines in pas- 
 senger service receiving the $4.25 rate. This figures 17.14 per 
 cent increase in this 25 year period. 
 
 In 1902 through freight engineers were paid $3.90 and 
 $4.00 per 100 miles; today they receive $4.70, $4.85, and $5.00; 
 220 Mikado type out of a total number of 1,695 engines in 
 freight service receiving the $5.00 rate. This figures 20.5, 21.2, 
 and 25 percentage increase. In this time the engines have in- 
 creased almost 100 per cent in both weight and tractive power. 
 
 Note the following example: Baltimore Division two 
 years ago consolidation engines weight 145,000 pounds, rate 
 $4.70, tonnage 3,200. Today Mikado engines weight 274,000 
 pounds, rate $5.00, tonnage 6,000; an increase of 87.5 per cent 
 in tonnage and 6.38 per cent in wages. 
 
 In Exhibit 14, Baltimore & Ohio, Philadelphia Di- 
 vision, Exhibit shows maximum in passenger service of 
 $188.80. The passenger engineers make 15 round trips per 
 month on a Division 136 miles, or 4,080 miles at $4.10 = 
 $169.28 and are away from home 24 hours each trip. 
 
 Baltimore Division: The heaviest type of engines, both 
 passenger and freight, used on this Division — 
 
 Exhibit 14 shows passenger $253.20, average $199.91. The 
 maximum wage was $224.10, the average $190.09. 
 
 Pittsburgh Division: Exhibit 14 shows maximum in pas- 
 senger service $269.50 per month. The heaviest mileage made 
 on that Division is a local passenger run making 5,414 miles 
 per month at $4.10 = $221.97. The engineer on this run has 
 never worked the entire month on account of the excessive 
 hours and character of the work. Next in earning comes Mr. 
 F. J. Hughes, who worked eleven months without losing a 
 trip; his maximum wage was $212.15; average $201.02. His 
 earnings for the year are filed with the Secretary at the re- 
 quest of the Chairman of the Board. 
 
 Newark Division: Exhibit 14 shows passenger service 
 $221.95; highest wage earned on the Division is by engineers 
 on trains Nos. 14 and 15, who make $188.60 per month. 
 
Chicago Division: Exhibit 14 shows passenger service 
 maximum $198.05; average $177.14; June was one of their 
 most favorable months, the maximum passenger was $184.00; 
 the average $147.53. 
 
 Freight is shown as maximum $225.50; average $203.39. 
 The maximum really earned was $189.85, average $143.89. 
 Local freight is shown, maximum $234.30; average $176.11. 
 The maximum earned was $153.69, average $150.96. 
 
 Switching is shown maximum $128.65, average $119.62. 
 The maximum earned was $108.00, average $89.46. 
 
 Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railway. 
 
 Statements showing rates of pay, mileage run, and 
 monthly earnings in the different classes of service by Divis- 
 ions has been filed with the Secretary. 
 
 Pennsylvania Lines East. 
 
 All information refused; officials stating all information 
 had been furnished by request to the Board. 
 
 The rates shown in Exhibit 14 for the Pennsylvania Lines 
 East are so at variance with the true facts that a sheet has been 
 compiled. On account of the magnitude of the task it has 
 been impossible to show all the runs. However, we show sev- 
 eral runs on each Division, giving miles, rates, number of 
 trips, and rate per trip ; also column showing the maximum 
 figures in Exhibit 14, and column showing in red figures the 
 amount of overtime it would be necessary to make in order to 
 reach the maximum. These are so lengthy it is impossible to 
 incorporate it in the Brief but it is filed with your Secretary. 
 You are requested to examine these in order to get a true idea 
 of the actual working conditions, and wages earned at present. 
 
 New York, New Haven & Hartford R. R, 
 
 The rate sheets showing the actual earnings for the New 
 York, New Haven & Hartford Railway are also filed with 
 your Secretary. There is a wide discrepancy in the figures 
 shown in Exhibit 14 and those we submit. Our figures show 
 
7 
 
 actual earnings, also actual miles possible to make by engineer 
 on runs shown. 
 
 Erie Railroad. 
 
 The Erie Railroad refused to allow their pay rolls to 
 be checked over, or give any information except for figures 
 shown in their statement. This was also true of local officials, 
 no doubt by instructions. On account of this our figures that 
 we file with your Secretary have been compiled from time- 
 cards and statements from the engineers. 
 
 On page 898 stenographic report Mr. Stuart of the Erie 
 claimed that for a period of some years the passenger engi- 
 neers had control of the Committee which adjusted wages and 
 succeeded in getting exceedingly high rates for themselves 
 and overlooked the freight men. Such a statement is mislead- 
 ing and cannot be allowed to go unchallenged. 
 
 For the information of the Board we give the following 
 facts: In 1887 the first wage agreement was made between 
 the Erie Railroad and the Engineers. Below we give a state- 
 ment showing rate paid in 1877, 10 years before we had a 
 committee, and rates paid in 1912 after the committee had 
 been "dominated" for 25 years, as claimed by Mr. Stuart, by 
 the passenger engineers on the committee. 
 
 Miles Pay Received 
 
 1877 N. Y. Div. Jersey City to Port Jervis... 88 1 day $ 4.00 
 
 1912 N. Y. Div. Jersey City to Port Jervis... 88 @ $4.10= $ 3.61 
 
 1877 Del. Div. Port Jervis to Susquehanna.. .105 IH day 4.66 
 
 1912 Del. Div. Port Jervis to Susquehanna... 105 @ $4,10= 4.31 
 
 1877 Susq. Div. Susquehanna to Hornell 140 m day 6.00 
 
 1912 Susq. Div. Susquehanna to Hornell 140 @ $4.10= 5.74 
 
 1877 Buffalo Div. Hornell to Buffalo 93 1 day 4.00 
 
 1912 Buffalo Div. Hornell to Buffalo 93 @ $4.10= 3.81 
 
 1877 TOTAL AMOUNT PAID ENGINEERS 
 
 Jersey City to Buffalo $18.66 
 
 1912 TOTAL AMOUNT PAID ENGINEERS 
 
 Jersey City to Buffalo $17.44 
 
 A reduction in the 35 year period of $ 1.19 
 
8 
 
 Even this does not tell it all. In 1900 they were given a 
 cut of ten per cent with the promise of it being restored as soon 
 as business would warrant. Unfortunately the Company never 
 felt that business warranted the restoration of this cut. 
 
 Boston & Maine Railroad. 
 
 We have filed with your Secretary a statement show- 
 ing the actual wages received by the five (5) highest paid, 
 and the five (5) lowest paid engineers on the Portland, 
 Fitchburg and Southern Division. Also statements show- 
 ing one high paid engineer in yard service on the C. & P. 
 Division South, and one high paid passenger engineer on 
 the C. & P. Division North. You will note that most of 
 the high paid jobs are caused by "overtime." We are 
 unable to find either passenger or through freight jobs that pay 
 anywhere near the amount shown in Exhibit 15. The Com- 
 pany stated they had used October, 1911, in compiling their 
 data, so we used that month. Later we learned on good author- 
 ity that they did not take the month of October neither did all 
 Divisions use the same month. They looked for the big money 
 wherever they could find it. 
 
 New York Central & Hudson River Railroad. 
 
 The rate sheets are filed with your Secretary and with 
 the exception of Sheets 1 and 2 (that were prepared in Mr. 
 Ingersoll's office) are signed by the Local Chairman of the 
 Engineers from that Division. Many of them are also signed 
 by the Superintendent. 
 
 Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway. 
 
 We have filed with your Secretary rate sheets showing 
 list of runs, and pay received. The rates on runs No. 25 and 26 
 (20th Century) Eastern Division show extremely high earn- 
 ings, on account of the Company insisting on having regular 
 men on these runs. It is possible for them to make this mileage 
 because the Company furnishes them with the very best of 
 picked equipment on account of the importance of the I'un. It 
 
is not so much the question of what these three men earn as 
 what do the other 1,647 engineers employed on that System 
 earn. 
 
 The same holds true of Railroad Exhibit No. 16. It is not 
 what the ten (10) highest men on each road receives, perhaps 
 once in a lifetime (under great stress), but what is the average 
 monthly wage the 31,123 engineers receive who are not shown 
 in Exhibit 16? 
 
 You have filed with you a Memorandum by Mr. Albert H. 
 Harris, General Counsel New York Central Lines, also the 
 Annual Reports of the 13 Roads comprising that System. We 
 ask a careful study of them. 
 
 If the engineers are to wait for an increase until all the 
 improvements referred to by Mr. Harris, as being mentioned 
 by Mr. Smith in his testimony, come to pass, when will they 
 get an increase in wages ? 
 
 The 45 millions required to modernize the freight termi- 
 nals in the streets on the West side New York City, mentioned 
 by Mr.- Smith, have been used as a stock in trade argument for 
 years every time the question of wages has come up. Any one 
 at all familiar with this particular case knows that the City has 
 for years been trying to get them to do something, but up to 
 date nothing has been done, and regardless of what the award 
 of the Board may be it is a question if anything will be done 
 until the City finally forces the Company to do it. 
 
 HOURLY EARNINGS: RAILROAD EXHIBITS 17, 18 
 
 AND 19. 
 
 These do not give the true facts, for the reason they do not 
 show the many hours the engineers are required to give before 
 departure and after arrival. They merely show from the time 
 the engineer is required to report for duty until released at the 
 end of the trip, no account being taken of the time called before 
 that or time consumed after arrival before he gets to his home 
 or boarding house. The testimony of the witnesses clearly 
 showed the many hours they gave in this way. If all this was 
 figured in the results shown would be very different. 
 
10 
 
 Exhibit 19, in suburban passenger service shown in column 
 "mileage allowed." This is misleading. Take the Erie for ex- 
 ample: They do not tell you they can hold the engineer 30 
 minutes at the end of each trip before any of these "miles 
 allowed" are earned and then are allowed one mile for each 6 
 minutes, so the mileage allowance fluctuates and is actually 
 earned in time before given. 
 
 POOR ROADS. 
 
 The Railroads would lead you to believe that on roads 
 where the rate is lower there are an inferior class of engineers 
 and that on the highest paid roads they have a better class, 
 trying to create the impression that engineers drift from one 
 road to another. 
 
 Unless a man is discharged and has to seek a position 
 elsewhere, the chances are that he will remain (until taken out 
 of the service) with the Company which promoted him. 
 
 Any engineer in service on any road must make good and 
 there is no classification with them like in other trades. A 
 man who takes an engine out on freight must pull the tonnage 
 and get over the road. A man who takes an engine out in 
 passenger service must make the time or he is taken out of 
 the service. 
 
 Many of the large trunk lines control the small lines trib- 
 utary to them, which perhaps are operated at a loss, on ac- 
 count of the strategic position occupied by the smaller line, 
 and. to prevent invasion of their territory by rival companies. 
 
 Much of the time of the Arbitration Board was consumed 
 in hearing about the poor roads, special mention being made 
 of the Detroit, Toledo & Ironton and Coal & Coke Railways, 
 and the claim made that the rate should meet their local con- 
 ditions, particular stress being placed on their light volume of 
 tonnage. When the engineer works he is handling every ton 
 the engine will pull and when he is not working is not paid. 
 Increased volume of tonnage on a rond simply means more 
 engineers employed. 
 
11 
 
 They are all, except the Coal & Coke Ry., practically pay- 
 ing a standard wage to their conductors and trainmen today, 
 and we know of no good reason why they should not pay their 
 engineers the same. They charge as much or more per ton 
 mile for freight, and passenger mile for passengers as other 
 competing lines. The Coal & Coke Railway, while they want 
 to plead poverty, is one of the wealthiest corporations in the 
 world. 
 
 This question has been passed upon by several of our 
 most able Jurists, and the principle of paying the going wage 
 in the competitive territory is well established. Following we 
 quote a few of the extracts from some of the Decisions: 
 
 Ames, et al, v. The Union Pacific Railway Company — 62 
 Federal Reporter page 7 (Apr. 5, 1894). U. S. Circuit Court 
 Nebraska. 
 
 Railroad Companies — Receivers changes in regulations 
 and wages of employees, 
 
 Syl: Previous to the appointment of Receivers of a Com- 
 pany operating an extensive railroad system, the relations be- 
 tween it and its employees and their rates of wages had been 
 determined mainly by certain rules, regulations and schedules 
 which had remained substantially unchanged for years, and 
 which were the results of conferences between the managers 
 of the railroad and representatives of organizations of the em- 
 ployees. One of such rules and regulations was that no 
 change should be made in them, or in the rate of wages with- 
 out certain notice to the organization whose members would 
 have been afifected. 
 
 Held, that the schedules of wages must be presumed 
 to be reasonable and just, and that new and reduced- sched- 
 ules, adopted by the Receivers without notice to the employees 
 or their representatives, would not be approved by the court, 
 although recommended by a majority of the Receivers; one 
 only of them being a practical railroad manager, and he tes- 
 tifying that the new schedules should not be put in force with- 
 out some "modifications, and it appearing that the allowances 
 made by the existing schedules were in fact just and equitable, 
 when all conditions were considered. 
 
12 
 
 The decision is by Judge Caldwell, and his language, be- 
 ginning at the top of page 13, is significant : 
 
 The Court shares in their anxiety to have an economical 
 administration of this trust to the end that those who own 
 the property and have liens upon it may get out of it what is 
 fairly their due. But to accomplish this desirable result the 
 wages of the men must not be reduced below a reasonable and 
 just compensation for their service. They must be paid fair 
 wages, though no dividends are paid on the stock and no in- 
 terest paid on the bonds. 
 
 U. S. Trust Company of New York vs. Omaha & St. Louis 
 Railway Company, 63 Federal Reporter, page TZ7 — Oct. 11, 
 1894. U. S. Circuit Court Iowa. 
 
 Syl. 1 : Railroad in Receivers hands — Reduction of wages. 
 
 Where a Receiver petitions for a reduction of employees' 
 wages, the employees concerned should be notified and ac- 
 corded a hearing. 
 
 Syl. 2: Same. 
 
 Where the wages paid to faithful and competent em- 
 ployees of a railroad in the hands of a Receiver are not shown 
 to be excessive for the labor performed and are not higher 
 than the wages paid to like employees on other lines of similar 
 character, operated under like conditions through the same 
 country, the court will not, against the protest of its said em- 
 ployees, reduce their wages because of inability of the railroad 
 to pay dividends or interest, even though present opportunity 
 exists for securing other employees for less wages. 
 
 Syl. 3 : Master's Report — How far conclusive. 
 
 The master's conclusions on such petitions are of fact, 
 and are not necessarily to be accepted by the Court. 
 
 Decision by Judge Woolson. 
 
 The Receiver presented to the Court a petition recom- 
 mending certain reductions in the rates of pay of different 
 classes of employees, requesting the Court to take action 
 thereon. 
 
 The Court referred the hearing to a master and directed 
 him to take proofs upon said petition and also as to what 
 wages are now being paid on other lines of similar character 
 
13 
 
 operated under like conditions through the same country, and 
 to report the same to this Court. 
 
 The following language by Judge Woolson appears at 
 page 740: 
 
 One of the recognized tests in this matter is that of com- 
 paring the rates of pay as proposed with those in force upon 
 "other lines operated through similar country and under like 
 conditions," so far as the same can be done. 
 
 Beginning at the bottom of page 741, the following lan- 
 guage appears: 
 
 The retention of faithful, intelligent and capable em- 
 ployees is of greatly more importance than temporary de- 
 crease in earnings, or present ability to secure other employees 
 at reduced wages. The court is not justified in discharging 
 trusted, satisfactory employees, or compelling their retirement 
 from the service of the court because present ability to employ 
 others at reduced wages would turn a present operation at a 
 loss into such operation without loss. If, as has been already 
 determined, the wages now paid are not in excess, in the par- 
 ticulars considered, of the wages paid by other roads running 
 through the same general country and operating under prac- 
 tically similar conditions, and the wages now paid on this line 
 are not excessive for the services performed, the reasons pre- 
 sented for a reduction, by the court of those wages, and 
 against the protest of the men affected thereby, should be 
 weighty indeed and should appeal with a most convincing 
 power, before the order for such reduction is entered. The 
 evidence shows that some of the employees, with families to 
 support, are scarcely able to maintain them on present wages. 
 /'The highest and best service cannot be expected from men 
 who are compelled to live in a state of pinch and want." 
 
 That the Receiver of a Railroad is to act toward its em- 
 ployees as persons of ordinary humanity would act under sim- 
 ilar circumstances, and that they are governed by the same 
 rules is shown by the case of 
 
 Thomas vs. East Tennessee Virginia & Georgia Railway 
 Co. (Cook Intervener), Feb. 17, 1894. 60 Fed. Rep. Page 7. 
 Decided by Judge Newman. 
 
14 
 
 Syl: Receivers — Injuries to employees — Compensation. 
 
 When a person in the employ of a Receiver has been in- 
 jured in the discharge of his duty without negligence on the 
 part of either, the court may order that his wages be paid 
 him for the time during which he was disabled, in view that 
 the ofificers of the court should be required to act toward 
 their employees as persons of ordinary humanity and right 
 feeling would act under similar circumstances ; but such com- 
 pensation should be confined to faithful and deserving em- 
 ployees, and to those who merit such consideration. 
 
 That the rate of wages of the employees of a Railroad 
 Receiver is to be judged by the same standards as other roads 
 is shown by the language of Judge Taft (now U. S. Presi- 
 dent), in the case of Thomas vs. Cincinnati, New Orleans 
 & Texas Pacific Ry. Co., decided in 1894, as reported in Vol. 
 62 Federal Reporter page 17, et seq. 
 
 Near the top of page 19, Judge Taft uses the following 
 language : 
 
 "There is no definite evidence on behalf of petitioners 
 that the rate per hour paid by the Receiver since the order of 
 reduction went into effect is less than that which is paid by 
 railway companies having shops in this vicinity. On the con- 
 trary, it seems from affidavits filed by counsel for Receiver 
 that the present rates per hour are quite equal to any paid in 
 this market." 
 
 Again, on page 20: 
 
 "We come now to the trainmen. No evidence has been 
 produced to show us that the engineers, firemen, conductors 
 or brakemen on passenger trains operated by the Receiver are 
 paid any less wages under the order of March 27th, than the 
 same class of employees on roads similarly situated." 
 
 RAILROAD RELIEF ASSOCIATIONS. 
 
 Regarding the "Voluntary Relief Association" (since the 
 use of the English language there has never been a greater 
 abuse of the word than the use of the word "voluntary" in con- 
 
15 
 
 nection with Railroad Relief Associations) of which much has 
 been said during the Hearings. We would simply ask that you 
 read the statement of Mr. H. L. Bond, General Counsel, Balti- 
 more & Ohio Ry., page 1024, Volume 2, in the "Report of the 
 Commission on the Employers' Liability and Workmen's Com- 
 pensation." Also, that of Mr. F. D. McKenney, counsel for the 
 Pennsylvania Railroad System, pages 1351 to 1371 inclusive. 
 We direct special attention to paragraph near bottom of page 
 1360, wherein he shows how it is voluntary, and then the quiet 
 unseen coercion that stands back of it. If you do not take out 
 and carry the Relief you are an undesirable both in obtaining 
 employment and in retaining your position while in their em- 
 ployment. Two men might give equal service, merit, qualifica- 
 tions and everything being equal, when they both arrive at 70 
 years of age, they are pensioned, but not equal. The one who 
 paid of his hard earned money about three times over for what 
 he got and who had signed his life away, so the Company was 
 protected from personal injury litigation, is given 10 per cent 
 more pension than the one who did not belong to the Volun- 
 tary Relief. There is nothing philanthropic about it. If ever 
 there was an institution conceived in sin and born in iniquity, 
 it is the Relief Departments, now in effect on fortunately only 
 a small percentage of the Railroads. It is the greatest piece of 
 legitimate "sand-bagging" in the world. For every dollar that 
 the Railroad Relief Department has paid out to its men, it has 
 gotten back $5 in return, by pleading it as a bar to recovery 
 for personal damage. 
 
 For years and years men employed on the roads where 
 the Relief existed were killed and crippled and could not re- 
 cover because the Road stood back of the Relief Department, 
 while employees on other Lines in the same territory could and 
 did go into the Courts and recover. 
 
 All this in addition to the fact that it brings the physical 
 examinations (more rigid in many instances than the govern- 
 ment requirements for the army or navy) the rigid discipline 
 and the biggest curse of the Railroad man's life — the age limit. 
 
16 
 
 THE PENSION SYSTEMS. 
 
 The several pension plans have a few good points, in that 
 they provide for some of our engineers, who through sickness 
 or misfortune are unable to live without assistance. They are 
 objectionable in that they also bring the physical examination, 
 and age limit. I know of no plan that requires less than 30 
 years' continuous service, many require more. The B. & O. 
 has just increased their requirement from 38 to 40 years. This 
 makes it impossible for an engineer even in middle life to ob- 
 tain employment where the pension prevails. 
 
 It is further objectionable in that it compels men to submit 
 to petty nagging and unjust treatment and working conditions 
 (which they would otherwise resent) in the hope that in a few 
 years more they will get to the retiring age and be pensioned. 
 A glance at Exhibit 28 will show what a "delusion" this Old 
 Age Pension really is. 
 
 It is damnable when it is used as the Grand Trunk applied 
 it in 1910 in the strike of the Trainmen and Conductors. Old 
 members of the B. of L. E. who had been retired for years on 
 a Pension were forced to act as "strikebreakers" under the 
 penalty of forfeiting their Pension. 
 
 When the present Eastern Concerted Wage Movement 
 was at a crisis and a strike vote was being taken on the 52 roads 
 involved several operating officials sent for their old, retired 
 engineers and notified them to hold themselves in readiness 
 to act as strikebreakers in case the Engineers went on strike. 
 Holding over their heads the same old club, viz: the loss of 
 pension if they refused. 
 
 ESTIMATED COLLATERAL INCREASE. 
 
 Much time was consumed and many figures presented to 
 show what would be the effect on the Roads if the requests 
 of the engineers were granted. An array of figures was built 
 up that was startling, to say the least. 
 
 They would have you believe that every employee would 
 demand and receive the same increase the engineers do. There 
 
17 
 
 is not an official that would seriously consider such a request 
 for a moment. They do not give a single employee one penny 
 more than they are compelled to. One official after another tes- 
 tifying before you that they only gave the increase to the em- 
 ployees in train service because they were compelled to do so, 
 not because they believed they were entitled to it. This being 
 true what hope or chance has the employee who is unorganized 
 to compel them to do anything? He is completely at the mercy 
 of the official over him, and must accept whatever wage they 
 choose to give him. 
 
 Bulletin 34, filed by the Railroads, after being prepared by 
 their "Bureau of Railway Economics" has no bearing on the 
 case and has no place in the discussion. We are making a 
 wage scale for engineers in the United States with the Ameri- 
 can Standard of living and it is immaterial what the wage or 
 working conditions are in foreign countries. 
 
 Exhibits 33 to 39 inclusive prepared by the same Bureau, 
 deals largely with the wholesale prices of food. Did yovt ever 
 know of an engineer buying or being able to buy his food at 
 wholesale? He buys in small quantities at retail and it is 
 proverbial that prices in stores that cater to the Railroad trade 
 are usually from 10 to 20 per cent higher than elsewhere. 
 
 CAPITALIZATION AND EXPENDITURE. 
 
 Particular stress was placed upon this phase of the ques- 
 tion, especially that part bearing on the wiping out of all sur- 
 plus if the requests of the engineers were granted. On page 51, 
 Statistics of Railways 1910, they show an increase of $929,- 
 263,303 in capitalization for the year ending June 30, 1910; at 
 .04 per cent this means over 37 millions more each year to come 
 out of earnings. If this increase keeps on each year, when 
 will there be any surplus? They talk about needing hundreds 
 of millions each year for necessary improvements they cannot 
 make for lack of funds, while at the same time spending mil- 
 lions for improvements that are largely theoretical and in many 
 cases purely ornamental and monumental, and from which 
 
18 
 
 even in the wildest dreams of fancy they could never hope to 
 receive even a slight return on their investment. 
 
 If the engineers were to wait until all the improvements 
 spoken of or contemplated were a reality, they never would 
 receive an increase. 
 
 So far as any surplus is concerned it is very evident the 
 Railroads never intend that there shall be any surplus left 
 over for a fund. 
 
 F^INANCIAL SITUATION. 
 
 In Exhibit 67, prepared by the Railroads, it would be 
 more interesting if they had shown the history of these Roads 
 for a decade, and show how some of them were wrecked, how 
 others that formerly paid dividends of 6 per cent and more 
 with change of ownership failed to pay operating expenses, 
 and how others were trading and stock jobbing propositions 
 and nothing more. 
 
 FEDERAL LAWS: RAILROAD EXHIBIT 71. 
 
 Full Crew Bill, Safety Appliance Acts, 16 Hour Law, 
 Nine Hour Law, Boiler Inspection Law and Ash Pan Law, all 
 of these are in the interests of humanity and are for the pur- 
 pose of safe-guarding human life, not only of the railroad 
 employees, but of the public at large. 
 
 It is true the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers used 
 their influence to have these Laws enacted, but they should 
 not be expected to pay for all of the cost of them nor go with- 
 out their just compensation because of them. 
 
 WAGES OF ENGINEERS AS COMPARED WITH 
 OTHER SKILLED TRADES. 
 
 Attempt is made by representatives of the railroads in 
 Exhibits 4S-a and 45-b to show that the wages of locomotive 
 engineers are higher when compared with other skilled classes, 
 those selected being building trades, newspaper printing, 
 foundries and machine shops, street railway motormen, taxi- 
 cab operators, and marine engineers on the Great Lakes. 
 
19 
 
 There is in our mind absolutely no foundation for the 
 comparison of wages of locomotive engineers with any of the 
 classes mentioned unless it be that of marine engineers, and 
 that only remotely. The wages of employees engaged in 
 building trades, newspaper printing, foundries and machine 
 shops are based on estimates of skill, hazards and economic 
 influences that surround these trades. There is no economic 
 condition that is common to any of these and the locomotive 
 engineer unless it be the factor of the cost of living, which we 
 have not introduced into our case. 
 
 To compare, as Exhibit 45-b does the character of the 
 duties and responsibilities of the work of motormen on street 
 railways with those of locomotive engineers is absurd, while 
 the comparison with chauffeurs passes our comprehension. 
 Any similarity between a modern locomotive with the skill 
 and exactions required of its operator, and the simplified mech- 
 anism of the present day automobile which is operated indis- 
 criminately by men, women and children is out of reason. 
 
 The marine engineer occupies a position of skill and re- 
 sponsibility but without the attending nervous strain of the 
 locomotive engineer. Both pass rigid, physical and technical 
 examinations, the only material difference being that one is 
 prescribed by the Government and the other by the employer. 
 To the captain of the vessel and its chief engineer is committed 
 the safe transportation of property and human lives. They 
 are not paid purely on the basis of skill and requirements of a 
 trade. The element of superintendence must necessarily be a 
 consideration, and economists habitually err in ignoring this 
 factor in making comparisons of the wages of locomotive en- 
 gineers with other skilled crafts. When a passenger or freight 
 train leaves a terminal it is completely under the control of 
 the engineer and the conductor. There is no superintendent 
 or other officer of the company in immediate touch with that 
 train to direct its movements or the duties of the employees 
 therieon. They may, of course, be reached by wire and given 
 orders as to manner of procedure, but whatever movements 
 
20 
 
 are made by that train until it reaches its terminal are directly 
 and immediately under the control of those employees. 
 
 A modern passenger train, including the engine, is esti- 
 mated as being worth $150,000.00. Suppose that train carries 
 150 passengers. Is it intended to be said that the movement 
 of a train of that great cost with its precious load of human 
 freight, from one division point to another (usually 125 to 
 150 miles) by the men in charge of that train — the engineer 
 and conductor — is purely mechanical, and requires no element 
 of superintendence, and that the compensation of the engineer 
 performing this service is comparable with a pressman, a 
 chauffeur, a plasterer or a motorman operating a street car 
 on a surface line in the city? 
 
 What other class of labor has to guard against 
 the unforeseen like the locomotive engineer? This was 
 forcibly brought out in a recent article that appeaired in 
 "Railway and Locomotive Engineering" from which we quote 
 as follows: "To Guard Against the Unforeseen is the duty 
 that keeps his eye riveted to the track ahead, noting every 
 signal and every sign. This is the duty that makes the fireman 
 keep an extra lighted lantern ready for use in case of trouble. 
 It is this duty that makes the careful engineer inspect his lo- 
 comotive every trip to see if any single bolt or screw shows 
 any sign of weakness. This is the duty that calls for lunch 
 pails as big as a boarding house — there might be a snow block- 
 ade or a burned bridge. It is this uncertainty of what will 
 turn up next that makes an engineer's life the nerve-straining 
 one it is. A man walking over the road may expect to find 
 different conditions, bvit he can stop in a single step, and the 
 risk is only on himself; an engineer cannot stop for a consid- 
 erable distance ; he is going at a rate of speed that is moderate 
 if all is well, and dangerous if anything is wrong; and a hun- 
 dred lives instead of one, are in his keeping, and depending 
 on his instant ability to cope with any emergency that may 
 turn up. These emergencies are turning up many times a 
 day to every engineer and that so few signals are disregarded 
 
21 
 
 and so few fatal accidents happen from this cause speaks well 
 for the careful guard kept on every detail and the abihty of 
 the men in charge to guard against the unforeseen." 
 
 ARTICLES EASTERN CONCERTED MOVEMENT 
 PASSENGER RATES. 
 
 "Engines with cylinders of 20 inches or less in DIAME- 
 TER $4.40 per 100 miles or less. Engines with cylinders 
 over 20 inches in diameter $4.60 per 100 miles or less. Miles 
 made in excess of 100 pro rata. 
 
 Overtime in through passenger service to be computed 
 on a basis of 20 miles per hour. 
 
 Overtime will be paid for at 70 cents per hour." 
 
 The rate is sHghtly higher than the rate paid in the West, 
 although in the West a 20-inch cyHnder engine would get the 
 $4.40 rate. At the time of the Western Concerted Movement 
 there were very few of the superheater engines with cylinders 
 larger than 22 inches in service, and the agreement was made 
 dividing on the 18-inch cylinder as a basis. Cylinders 18-inch 
 and under a certain rate and over 18-inch a certain rate. 
 
 You will note in the Railroad Exhibit Volume 3, Page 142 
 that the $4.40 rate is quite common in the South, even for the 
 i8-inch cylinders in passenger service. It is true the Western 
 territory are now getting a few engines that are 24 and 26-inch 
 cylinders, the same as we have in the East, but they have been 
 largely introduced in the past two years since the Western 
 Agreement was made. 
 
 The claim is made that the overtime rate is high. We take 
 the position that the overtime rate is less per hour than what 
 we have been receiving for the five hours previous. For ex- 
 ample: If a man would run 100 miles, for which he would 
 receive $4.40, with a maximum of five (5) hours, it means 88c 
 per hour. If he works one hour more we are only asking 70c. 
 Mr. Atterbury on Page 183, Vol. 3, Railroad Exhibits, states 
 "This would result in placing a premium for delays on the 
 Road." This is a remarkable statement for a man in his posi- 
 
22 
 
 tlon to make in view of the fact that he must know that if one 
 of his engineers on a heavy fast passenger train lost one minute 
 on the Road, he would be called upon to explain and he would 
 have to furnish a pretty good explanation if not censured for it. 
 If there was anything in the theory that the high rate would 
 cause men to make overtime, is it not equally true that the 
 present low rate would cause the Company to hold men much 
 longer at the terminals than they would otherwise? 
 
 Particular stress is laid upon the fact that we seek to 
 establish a wage scale by the size of the cylinders. With but 
 three or four exceptions this has been the universal practice 
 until it was discovered about two years ago that by super- 
 heating their engines and placing on them much larger cylin- 
 ders they could increase the tractive power of the engine from 
 25 to 35 per cent and not increase the weight on drivers. Now 
 the claim is made that weight on drivers is what should govern, 
 yet they are not consistent even in this because as soon as they 
 get to weight on drivers of the Mallet Engine they don't want 
 to talk about it and say it is unfair. The true principle would 
 be the tractive power of the engine. They do not want to con- 
 sider this because the Mallet Engine has doubled the tractive 
 power of the simple engine. We believe their claim for weight 
 on drivers to govern is not as fair as our claim for size of 
 cylinder to govern because the cylinder is really the greatest 
 factor in deciding the tractive power of the engine. On Page 
 760, Stenographic notes, Mr. Atterbury admitted it would be 
 possible to find objections to any plan of classifying engines. 
 
 We believe the men running passenger engines in the 
 Eastern Territory should be paid as much or more than men 
 for similar service hi either the South or West because the 
 traffic is mors congested, more block signals to look out for, 
 more requirements as to time schedules and high speed. I 
 hardly think it necessary to dwell on these passenger rates at 
 length. I simply ask you to consider and compare the rates 
 requested with the rates now being paid in the southeastern 
 territory, and the western territory, and to take into considera- 
 
23 
 
 tion the congestion of traffic here and what the men have to 
 contend with. 
 
 In proof of this congestion I would refer you to Vol. 1, 
 Engineers' Exhibits, Page 35; also as proof that they have 
 more revenue to draw from I would refer you to an Exhibit 
 tiled by us showing density of traffic in the different territories. 
 
 ELECTRIC SERVICE. 
 
 "Whenever electric service is installed or now in operation 
 locomotive engineers will take the positions on electric loco- 
 motives or multiple unit trains under the prevailing schedules 
 governing rates of pay and condition in steam service. Any 
 change from steam to electricity or other motive power in any 
 form at any point on the system, such power will be manned 
 by engineers and paid according to the service for the territory 
 affected, or where electric or multiple unit trains enter upon 
 steam tracks or tracks formerly operated by steam or where 
 trackage rights are leased to holding companies they shall be 
 operated by engineers operating steam trains on said tracks." 
 
 We claim the engineer should handle the motive power 
 regardless of what that power may be. 
 
 Locomotive Engineers should not be required or expected 
 to assume the extra hazard of having inexperienced men (be- 
 cause they are cheap) operating electrical equipment sand- 
 wiched in between steam trains on the same track. 
 
 During the period of transition from steam to electricity, 
 you have been shown how it is interchangeable, how men 
 work part of the day on an electric locomotive and part with 
 a steam locomotive, or vice versa, or work part of the day on 
 an electric locomotive and the rest of the day on a multiple 
 unit train. In case of the failure of the electric equipment he 
 at once takes a steam locomotive on the run. 
 
 The change of motive power from steam to electric was 
 no fundamental change in the duties or responsibilities of the 
 engineer, consequently there should be no difiference in the 
 rate of pay. 
 
 In order to be a qualified engineer the man must come up 
 
24 
 
 to the standard required by the Company and pass the exami- 
 nations prescribed. This holds true of the engineer in electric 
 service. 
 
 The hazard has increased instead of diminished by the 
 change of power. The following case has just come in for 
 relief, which we quote for example : 
 
 Ronald J. Rice, age 31, wife and four children, ages 7,. 4 
 and 2 years and baby 8 months old, member of the organiza- 
 tion since May 8th, 1910, cause of physical disability, electric 
 shock. Doctor's certificate reads: "absolutely unable to do 
 any kind of work because of impaired physical condition." 
 This is given to show what the organization is called upon 
 to do. 
 
 The steam I'ates for this service have been accepted and 
 paid for since November 30, 1906, by both the N. Y. C. & H. 
 R. Ry. and the N. Y., N. H. & H. R. R. It is true they claim 
 this agreement is only a temporary arrangement during the 
 transitional stages. We simply point to the fact that it has 
 stood almost 6 years and the electric zone is no nearer com- 
 pletion today than when the agreement was signed, for they 
 are constantly extending the territory of the electric zone. 
 
 Steam rates are paid on the Long Island and Pennsyl- 
 vania Ry. for the electric service and the position filled by lo- 
 comotive engineers clearly proving they recognize the prin- 
 ciple, although requiring more mileage for a day's work. The 
 Long Island 15 more miles, the Pennsylvania 60. On pages 
 964 to 969 of the stenographic notes the engineers' committee 
 explains how this minimum day's mileage was arrived at and 
 why (to hold the pay at $4.72). 
 
 You can readily see there could only be one decision ar- 
 rived at with a committee made up like this one was. 
 
 We have shown by witness (cross examination Mr. Pol- 
 lock, General Supt., N. Y., N. H. & H. Ry., pages 662 to 667 
 stenographic notes), that conductors are placed on all the In- 
 terurban electric cars that use steam tracks and are paid the 
 
25 
 
 minimum standard monthly rate of $125.00 and on some of 
 the rmis as high as $167.00. 
 
 This conductor has full charge of the train and is held 
 responsible. The motorman being inexperienced, knows noth- 
 ing about his rights on the road and has never even been asked 
 or required to pass the examinations, on Time Card, Book of 
 Rules, or Signal Rules. Certainly a poor way to operate high 
 speed service, sandwiched in between steam passenger runs 
 an the same tracks. 
 
 The claim is made there is only one or two cars at the 
 most per train; one big interurban car is enough to cause a 
 disastrous wreck. 
 
 The claim made that other employees are just as compe- 
 tent for this service and that a good bright college man could 
 do the work as well or better, is about in line with their claim 
 that they can teach a man to operate an electric locomotive or 
 multiple unit train in from 2 to 5 days. The statements are 
 simply made for effect and no one knows better than those 
 who make them that they are not correct. 
 
 We would also call your attention to the fact that in Ex- 
 hibit 105, showing passenger rates in the Western territory, 
 you will find under remarks that the locomotive engineer has 
 been conceded the right to handle the motor car service of 
 the West. With but few exceptions these are gasoline motor 
 cars. Would also refer you to Article 2 Western Agreement 
 Exhibit No. 81. 
 
 The question of electric service on the Pennsylvania Lines 
 was given quite a good deal of time in the discussion. In or- 
 der that you may understand our contention on this particular 
 phase of the question, I desire to place the following facts be- 
 fore you. In order to do so, it is necessary to go back a short 
 time. In 1911, in May, in the Pittsburgh District the shopmen 
 had a strike and the representatives of the several railroad 
 brotherhoods, including the Engineers, were called upon by 
 the Company to conform to the terms of their contract. Prior 
 to this time it had been impossible to ascertain whether the 
 
26 
 
 regulations and working rules were regarded by the officers 
 of the Company, as the contract between the Company and its 
 employees and mutually binding on both parties. The claim 
 was made by the representatives of the American Federation 
 of Labor, who were handling the strike of the Shopmen that 
 there was no contract between the train organizations and the 
 Pennsylvania Company, and the result was that many of our 
 men were clamoring to engage in a sympathetic strike to as- 
 sist the shopmen. In order to settle this question once for all, 
 the following telegram was sent to Mr. Long: 
 
 "Pittsburgh, Pa., May 25, 1911. 
 Mr. S. D. Long, Gen. Mgr. Penna. R. R., Broad Street Station, 
 Philadelphia, Pa.: 
 For the purpose of obtaining a proper understanding of 
 the position of men in train and yard service will you kindly 
 advise sometime today care Lincoln Hotel, whether you re- 
 gard the schedule which was recently negotiated through the 
 medium of the trainmen and conductors' organization in con- 
 ference with officers of the Company to be a contract equally 
 binding upon the conductors and yard and trainmen, as well 
 as the Company. 
 
 (Signed) Val Fitzpatrick, 
 
 Vice-President B. of R. T." 
 
 Three days later the following message was received: 
 
 "Philadelphia, Pa., May 28, 1911. 
 Val Fitzpatrick, Lincoln Hotel, Pittsburgh, Pa.: 
 
 The regulations now in force for the government of train- 
 men in road and yard service cover a mutual obligation which 
 the Railroad Company is earnestly endeavoring to observe. 
 That it has the right to and does expect the trainmen in yard 
 and road service to fulfill their obligations with equal good 
 faith. 
 
 (Signed) S. D. Long, 
 
 Gen. Mgr. Penna. Lines East." 
 
 The answer to this message clearly established the fact 
 that the regulations and Working rules were regarded as an 
 obligation mutually binding on both parties. 
 
21 
 
 Referring tc Railroad Exhibit, Volume 3, page 169, Mr. 
 Atterbury states: "The conferences with the engineers' com- 
 mittee on December 9, 1910, terminated with the mutual ac- 
 ceptance of rules, regulations and rates, consistent with those 
 previously accepted for the government of trainmen, conduc- 
 tors and firemen." This statement taken in conjunction with 
 the messages quoted above, clearly establishes the fact that 
 there does now exist a contract between the Company and its 
 engineers and applies alike to all Lines covered by the regula- 
 tions. We would refer you to page 80 of the Book of Regula- 
 tions and Rates, Pennsylvania Lines East, wherein it shows 
 the specified runs between Jersey City and various other points 
 in electric service, also to page 104, wherein the rates and 
 specified runs are shown over the territory covered by the 
 storage battery car between Montandon and Mifflinsburg on 
 the L. & T. Branch, which we believe bears out our contention 
 that the contract between the Company and its engineers was 
 violated in these particular instances by the failure of the Com- 
 pany to apply Rates and Rules to the electric service in the 
 territory mentioned. Rule No. 1, in their Book of Rules and 
 Regulations reads: "Ability, fitness and seniority entitle en- 
 gineers to promotion as opportunity may offer." Passenger 
 runs placed on the territory mentioned were not offered to 
 Pennsylvania railroad engineers who had rendered good and 
 faithful service for many years and had a right to expect pro- 
 motion to this service by the application of this rule. Many 
 of them had sacrificed their career as railroad men to the Penn- 
 sylvania Company by remaining with them in minor positions, 
 looking forward to this promotion, until they had passed the 
 age limit to obtain employment elsewhere. 
 
 Rule 14 reads as follows : "New runs and permanent va- 
 cancies in road, train and yard service will be advertised and 
 assigned to the oldest engineer in the service making applica- 
 tion in writing, etc." 
 
 When electric service was established between Jersey City 
 and Manhattan transfer, or rather when the Hudson and Man- 
 
28 
 
 liattan assumed charge, as stated by Mr. Atterbury, also when 
 electric service was installed between Montandon and Miflflins- 
 burg, a supplement to the regular time table was issued, placing 
 these trains on the time table and subject to Pennsylvania 
 Railroad Rules. This we contend established new runs on 
 this Railroad. The above rules quoted were not complied 
 with, none of these runs were advertised, nor were engineers 
 on their respective Divisions given an opportunity to qualify 
 or make application for these new runs. Instead passenger 
 engineers were removed from service and their runs given to 
 men who had never worked for the Company a single day. 
 Mr. Atterbury stated on Page 709 of the Minutes before the 
 Arbitration Board as follows: "We delegated to the Hudson 
 and Manhattan Railroad Company the entire operation of th^t 
 line and gave them permission to man their own trains and our 
 trains with their own men." Clearly a violation of their agree- 
 ment. 
 
 Regarding the question of the electric service in operation 
 on the Louisburg & Tyrone Branch of the Pennsylvania Rail- 
 road, note Mr. Atterbui-y's testimony, pages 754 and 755, 
 stenographic report of the Arbitration, wherein he states that 
 the Pennsylvania Railroad has nothing to do with the electric 
 service now in operation on this Branch. In December, 1910, 
 the Committee of the Locomotive Engineers attempted to 
 make some kind of an arrangement with the Company as it 
 was apparent at that time that something was going to be done 
 as they were making connections at the River Bridge to cross 
 into Lewisburg. The committee was told by the officials of 
 the Company there was no contract existing between the two 
 Companies. However, on January 5, less than 30 days later, 
 the following notice was issued: 
 
 "Williamsburg, Pa., January 5, 1911. 
 General Order No. 1, effective at 5:30 A. M. Saturday, 
 January 7, 1911, the electric cars on Montandon and Mififlins- 
 burg Electric Railway Company will run over the Lewisburg 
 
29 
 
 & Tyrone Branch between Lewisburg Passenger Station and 
 their Junction at the East End of Lewisburg Bridge. 
 
 (Signed) H. P. Lincoln, 
 
 Superintendent." 
 
 Later a similar notice was issued extending this service 
 between Montandon and Mifflinsburg, a distance of 10.9 miles, 
 as shown by the copy of blueprint which we have filed with 
 your Secretary. 
 
 Our purpose in filing this blueprint is to show that there 
 is only one electric railroad in this territory. It does not reach 
 either Mifflinsburg or Montandon. You will note that the 
 name of this electric line is the Milton, Watsontown & Lewis- 
 burg R. R., and not the Road mentioned in Order No. 1. At 
 the time this service was put in in January, 1911, there was no 
 record of a charter for the R. R. Company mentioned in Gen- 
 eral Order No. 1, neither have we seen any notice of one being 
 granted since that date. This leads us to believe that this 
 electric line is purely Pennsylvania Railroad service and that 
 the contention of the Management that they have no connec- 
 tion with the operation of that service, over that Line, is a 
 subterfuge to prevent the application of the rate, rules and 
 regulations governing the engineers of this System, with the 
 result that the large storage battery car running between Mon- 
 tandon and Mifflinsburg, is being operated by a man who never 
 had railroad experience prior to this time, while there were 
 45 extra engineers on this Division at the time, and some of 
 them had been promoted and worked as extra engineers since 
 October, 1906. We ask that the article on electric service be 
 granted, so that in future such cases as this cannot arise and 
 because we believe that the engineers are the logical men to 
 operate the service of this character. 
 
 Back of all this contention is another phase of it which 
 perhaps the Arbitration Board does not consider as having any 
 bearing on the case, namely, the human side of the question. 
 Engineers who have served the best part of their life for the 
 Company should be given preference in this work over men 
 
30 
 
 who were employed yesterday. Unless the engineer is given 
 control of this class of service, whenever the change is made 
 he simply sees the position that he has worked the best part 
 of his life to fit himself for, taken away from him and given 
 to some one who has been employed by the Company only 
 recently. You can readily understand why the organization 
 fights so hard for this principle, because upon it depends the 
 very life of the organization itself. 
 
 On Page 755 of the Stenographic notes Mr. Atterbury 
 conceded that they practically carried out our requests today 
 but objected to the Board handing down an Award that made 
 it obligatory. In other words a distinction without a difference. 
 
 FREIGHT RATES. 
 
 "Engines with cylinders of 20 inches in diameter or less 
 $5.25. Engines with cylinders over 20 inches in diameter and 
 less than 24 inches in diameter $5.50. 
 
 Engines with cylinders 24 inches in diameter and over, 
 except Mallets, $5.75. Mallet type of engine $7.00. 
 
 One hundred (100) miles or less, ten (10) hours or less to 
 constitute a day's work. All over one hundred (100) miles to 
 be paid pro rata. Overtime to be computed on a basis of ten 
 (10) miles per hour, and paid for pro rata. Through freight 
 rates to apply to all mine runs, work, wreck, pusher or helper, 
 milk, roustabout and circus trains, according to class of en- 
 gines. Overtime to be computed on minute basis. Engineers 
 will be paid at overtime rate for all time over 15 hours held 
 at other than their home terminal. 
 
 Twenty-five cents (25c) per 100 miles or less additional to 
 be added to through freight rates for local freight service ac- 
 cording to class of engines." 
 
 We simply ask you to compare the rates requested with 
 the rates that are now paid on engines of a similar class in both 
 the southern and western territory. We also desire to impress 
 upon you the fact that in the entire southeastern territory with 
 but few exceptions the day is 8 hours instead of 10. The ma- 
 jority of the roads paying $5.15 and $5.40 dividing on the 20- 
 inch cylinders. If they would work ten hours at this rate they 
 
31 
 
 would earn $6.18 and $6.48 respectively instead of $5.25 and 
 $5.50. 
 
 At the time the Southeastern Wage Movement v^^as made 
 there was no engine larger than 23-inch in the southeastern 
 territory. Since then they have a few superheaters with cylin- 
 ders 24 and 26-inch in diameter on the Southern Ry., and they 
 pay 25c additional or $5.65 for them. The Southern Railway 
 is on an 1 1 mile per hour basis, or a nine hour day. This would 
 make the rate much higher than what we are asking. There 
 are no Mallet Engines in the south except one or two experi- 
 mental engines. 
 
 The Norfolk & Western Railway has a few Mallets in 
 freight service and have just ordered 50 more, they also have 
 Mallets in the hump yard service, and they are paid the freight 
 rate of $6.50 for ten hours and $6.50 for nine hours in freight 
 service. 
 
 In Railroad Exhibit 10, Sheet 4, the Railroads show the 
 Mallet Engine in through freight service on the Norfolk & 
 Western as paying overtime after 11 hours and 31 minutes. 
 This is not correct and we have filed with your Secretary a 
 letter from the Chairman of that Road which states that they 
 receive overtime after 9 hours in through freight service. If 
 there is any doubt about this it can easily be verified by the 
 Officials of that Company. 
 
 The Chesapeake & Ohio has about 50 Mallets in freight 
 service, they are not included in the showing of the Southern 
 group of Roads. In reality they should be included in the 
 Eastern Territory along with the Norfolk & Western because 
 they compete with other lines between Chicago and Tidewater. 
 
 Paralleling them and handhng principally coal trafific is 
 the Virginian Railway who have a large number of Mallets in 
 freight service, they have just completed a new schedule effec- 
 tive August 1st, and pay $6.25, $6.50 and $7.00 for one hundred 
 miles or less, 9 hours or less for the three different classes of 
 Mallet engine according to weight. This schedule has been 
 filed with your Secretary. 
 
32 
 
 Mr. Atterbury stated they only had one Mallet engine. 
 Since our conference closed they have turned out another one 
 of this type. The one that they have in service on the moun- 
 tain has taken the place of two of their large consolidation 
 engines, resulting in the saving of a crew. Even at the rate 
 asked for, it would show a saving of $2.70 per day over the two 
 consolidation engines that formerly did this work. We believe 
 that freight rates should apply to mine runs, work, wreck, 
 pusher, helper, milk, roustabout and circus trains, according to 
 class of engine. They are practically all main line movement 
 and in many cases are done with the freight crews running in 
 the "slow freight pool." Usually mine run men are home at 
 regular hours as a rule, but it is freight service pure and simple 
 and should be paid as such. There is perhaps no work on the 
 road that is as particular as the work around these mines in 
 placing cars for loading and switching out those already 
 loaded. This work is dangerous with very close clearance on 
 the sides in many places and on steep heavy grades. The prac- 
 tice of paying freight pay for milk train service is one that is 
 almost universally established now. While they run on a 
 passenger schedule, yet it is heavy local work in this service 
 and they are in a majority of cases paid freight rates for it, 
 many of the Companies having long ago recognized the justice 
 of this claim. Circus trains should be paid freight rates and 
 would refer you to the rates now in effect in the south and west 
 and the rules governing same. 
 
 "OVERTIME TO BE COMPUTED ON MINUTE BASIS." 
 
 We consider this rule as unqualifiedly fair and correct in 
 principle. In computing overtime the general practice has 
 been to disregard fractions of an hour less than 30 minutes and 
 to count fractions of more than 30 minutes as full hours. There 
 is no good reason why the employee should work 29 minutes 
 overtime for nothing or why the company should pay one 
 hour's pay for 31 minutes of overtime. Under the rule we ask 
 it means that every minute a man works he shall be paid for 
 
33 
 
 and for every 60 minutes' pay he gives the company one hour 
 of actual service. Perhaps 60 per cent of the roads throughout 
 the south and west are paid on the minute basis. 
 
 "HELD AT OTHER THAN HOME TERMINAL." 
 
 "Engineers will be paid at overtime rate for all time over 
 15 hours held at other than their home terminal." 
 
 The primary purpose of this rule is to correct abuses that 
 now exist in unnecessarily keeping men in unassigned freight 
 service away from their homes. Engineers have no hope that 
 the enactment of this rule will add to their compensation, but 
 if such rule is made efifective it is reasonable to suppose that 
 operating officers would be careful to avoid the penalty. As 
 it is at present on practically all of the roads in the territory 
 there is no penalty and consequently attention is not given to 
 the comfort of the men in this respect that would otherwise be 
 the case. Engineers are not like men in the ordinary trades 
 and in order to enjoy any of the advantages and comforts of 
 home life they should have their work so arranged as to give 
 them the greatest practicable amount of time at home. Aside 
 from work and wages there are moral and Christian features 
 of this question that ought not to be overlooked. 
 
 We are firmly of the opinion that it is the duty of the 
 Railway Companies to their employees to recognize this prin- 
 ciple in some definite way, but it can be accomplished only by 
 the adoption of a penalty rule. A President or General Man- 
 ager of a railway will declare that it is the purpose of the 
 Road to give the employees as much time at home as possible, 
 and operate the road successfully, and many of them mean 
 what they say, but underneath these officers, and necessary in 
 the complex operations of the system, are a host of minor offi- 
 cials, some of whom need discipline and restraint as much as 
 the employees themselves, and these officials will recognize 
 the guaranties of the company to the employees only when 
 they are written in definite rules, and when it is certain that 
 their disregard of such rules will, by penalty payment, be im- 
 
34 
 
 mediately called to the attention of the higher officers of the 
 company. 
 
 The principle is not new. By referring to Railroad Ex- 
 hibit No. 72, Sheets 5, 6 and 7, you will find 12 roads east of 
 Chicago recognize the principle and are now paying it. Sev- 
 eral of the large systems even paying for a shorter period than 
 we are asking for and have been doing so for years. Ten of 
 the great trunk lines in the southeastern territory recognize 
 the principle and pay for it. 
 
 LOCAL FREIGHT TRAINS. 
 
 "Twenty-five cents (25c) per one hundred miles or less 
 additional to be added to through freight rates for local freight 
 service according to class of engines." - 
 
 It would seem that this proposal would hardly need much 
 explanation or argument to sustain it when the diflference be- 
 tween through freight and way freight service is understood. 
 A rate per mile is fixed for the service of the through freight 
 engineer according to the size of the engine, and this rate is 
 based upon the work incident to taking a through freight train 
 over the road. Now, in the case of a way freight engineer, he 
 takes not only a freight train over the road but stops at each 
 station or other working point and switches, and does the 
 work that is required of that train. Thus the movement of the 
 way freight train is slower and the work is harder than it would 
 be on a through freight, and the extra rate for way freight is 
 therefore justified. You are referred to the testimony of Mr. 
 F. A. Hallett, Page 291 of the printed proceedings 6f the 
 arbitration, as distinctive of the work of the ordinary way 
 freight compared with through freight service. 
 
 This principle is universal throughout the west and almost 
 so throughout the. southeast. We would refer you to En- 
 gineers' Exhibit No. 81, Article 1, Paragraph E, as proof of 
 our statement for the 63 roads represented in the Western 
 Concerted Movement in 1910. All roads in the southeastern 
 territory (with but few exceptions on small roads) pay a higher 
 
35 
 
 rate for local freight service. We believe the request is equit- 
 able because of the fact it is all work the full limit of hours or 
 nearly so with constant switching at stations that the man on 
 through freight is largely exempt from. Neither does the man 
 on local freight ever have a chance to make additional mileage 
 when business is good like the man does in through freight 
 service. It is long hours every trip and the mileage is the 
 same regardless of how much other business there may be on 
 the Line. 
 
 SWITCHING SERVICE 
 
 "Rates for engines in switching service $4.50 per day. Ten 
 (10) hours or less to constitute a day's work. All over ten (10) 
 hours to be paid for pro rata. Overtime to be computed on 
 minute basis." 
 
 The rate asked is not high enough. Perhaps no class of 
 service has been more neglected nor has the burden of any 
 class of service increased more rapidly than that of the switch 
 engineer, and while we do not claim as high a rate of pay for 
 the switch engineer as for an engineer in road service because 
 of the different conditions and requirements incident to the 
 work, but in fixing the wages of the switch engineer it should 
 be recognized first that the engineer must have all of the quali- 
 fications necessary for a locomotive engineer. On many of 
 the roads the examinations and requirements for the position 
 are similar. Years ago it used to be looked upon as a soft job. 
 That day, if it ever existed, has gone by long ago. If there are 
 any soft jobs today in this service we do not know of their 
 location. There is one factor about the employment of a switch 
 engineer that cannot be overlooked — he works all the time, and 
 it is hard, heavy work. If he is paid for ten hours' work he gives 
 ten hours' service. There is no constructive mileage or other 
 allowances in his case. See testimony of F. A. Edwards Page 
 382; J. S. Fagan, Page 296; Wm. Daniels, Page 405; steno- 
 graphic report of hearings. 
 
 Many of the Roads do not buy or build engines for switch- 
 ing, but take heavy Road engines for the service. Many of 
 
36 
 
 these engines are in such bad shape they are no longer fit for 
 Road service so they are placed in the yard to get a little more 
 service out of them before being placed in the shop for a general 
 overhauling. They were not designed for switching service; 
 the space between the side of the cab and the reverse lever is 
 so narrow a man of ordinary size cannot stand between them, 
 the result is he has to walk the length of the cab every time he 
 moves the lever. The tanks are so high it is impossible to see 
 over them, the result is — a man must hang half way out of the 
 side window of the cab in coupling on to cars, or to see signals 
 from the rear. The adoption of "hump yards" in many of the 
 large terminals, calls for heavy consolidation or mallet type 
 engines in these yards, where mallet type is used, we believe 
 the road rate should be paid. 
 
 We ask for the overtime to be paid on the minute basis for 
 the same reasons we give in freight service, and for the further 
 reason we desire to get away from the present System of "un- 
 der 30 minutes nothing, over 30 minutes one hour," and the 
 sharp practice indulged in by many yard masters and other 
 officials who will work a switch engineer 26 or 28 minutes, and 
 then release him so he will not get the hour's overtime. 
 
 This is not imaginary; a number of officers have acknowl- 
 edged they have issued such instructions when we have had the 
 cases up. 
 
 BELT LINE SERVICE 
 
 "Engineers in belt line service will be paid $5.00 per day, 
 ten (10) hours or less to constitute a day. All over ten (10) 
 hours fifty cents (50) per hour. Overtime to be computed on 
 minute basis. 
 
 Engineers of single-crewed yard and belt line engines will 
 report for duty at the appointed time and will receive one-half 
 hour's pay in addition to the regular day's pay for reporting 30 
 minutes in advance of the commencement of the day's work. 
 In case of doubled-crewed engines, if engineers do not relieve 
 each other at the appointed time and the engineer of the next 
 crew is required to prepare his engine 30 minutes, pay will be 
 allowed for same.' 
 
37 
 
 Belt Line Service is in reality a form of road service al- 
 though designated by the different roads as transfer service or 
 belt line service. It is usually a movement of trains of cars 
 from one yard to the other of the same road which is usually 
 styled transfer service ; or in the case of a belt line, which is a 
 short road that intersects a number of trunk roads within a 
 limited territory, and does the interchange and transfer work 
 between these lines. In nearly every case it is main line move- 
 ment with heavy power and heavy tonnage, and they are often 
 gone on a trip from 10 to 15 hours. In the Chicago Belt Line 
 Service in many instances they have no regular hours, they are 
 called whenever there is a train to deliver, day or night, and 
 will be from 10 to 15 hours making the trip and will probably 
 pick up and set out 3 or 4 trains during that time. This engineer 
 probably passes an examination on from 3 to 8 different rail- 
 roads on time cards, book of Rules, and signal operations. 
 With the different conditions that exist an engineer is far more 
 liable to get in trouble on a foreign road than his own. 
 
 For the characteristics of this work you are referred to the 
 evidence of Mr. F. A. Edwards, Page 382, and for justification 
 for a higher rate of pay than switching service the testimony 
 of Mr. W. L. Hudson, Road Foreman of Engines, Pittsburgh 
 Division, Pennsylvania R. R., Pages 963-964 of the printed 
 proceedings. 
 
 In both Belt Line and switching service we ask an arbi- 
 trary allowance of 30 minutes' preparatory time, except in the 
 case of double-crewed engines where crews relieve each other. 
 
 On a majority of Yard engines, and on many belt line 
 engines, engineers are not called but are required to report at a 
 certain time. They must be there and have their supplies and 
 everything ready, the engine oiled and inspected and ready to 
 move the minute the time is up or the signal given, or explain 
 why. The only class of labor in this service that is required to 
 report for duty and give thirty minutes or more of their time, 
 lor which they receive no pay getting ready in order that 
 they may do a good day's work. We believe if the engineer is 
 required to report at this time to get ready he should be paid 
 the arbitrary allowance of thirty minutes. 
 
 BEGINNING AND ENDING OF A DAY. 
 "In all classes of road service an engineer's time will com- 
 mence 30 minutes before leaving roundhouse or designated 
 
38 
 
 track and will conclude at the time the engine is placed on the 
 designated track or relieved by hostler at terminal." 
 
 We ask this for the same reason that we ask it for the 
 engineer in switching or belt line service. The Road Engineer 
 must get around to the roundhouse, or designated track and 
 get the engine ready. He must know and is held responsible 
 that the engine has the necessary supplies, sandboxes filled, 
 and air sander or sand pipes open and working, tank filled with 
 water, and if on a road where they scoop water that the scoop 
 works, examine the fire-box and boiler and test gauge cocks 
 and water glass cocks, inspect and oil the engine. Grease cups 
 on many roads are filled, but he must know that plungers are 
 screwed down and lock-nuts fastened so they will not chatter 
 loose while running. On many roads he must fill the lubri- 
 cators. He must start the air-pump, and when pressure is 
 pumped up, test brakes and know they work. He must do 
 all this and be ready to move at time ordered, generally from 
 30 minutes to one hour and a half before time to leave the 
 terminal. 
 
 The Interstate Commerce Commission has ruled "That 
 an Engineer's time begins when the responsibility begins and 
 ends when the responsibility ceases." 
 
 In many cases engineers have been disciplined for some 
 failure or for getting into trouble before their pay had com- 
 menced as an engineer, in other words he is held responsible 
 for anything that may happen to the engine or boiler, but is 
 not under pay. 
 
 INITIAL TERMINAL DELAY. 
 
 "When delayed within the terminal as much as one hour 
 beyond the time set to leave engineers will be paid one hour's 
 overtime at overtime rates according to class of engine. One 
 hour and 30 minutes to constitute two hours, etc. 
 
 If Road overtime is made on same trip initial overtime 
 will be deducted." 
 
 This is another rule by the adoption of which the engi- 
 neers do not hope to add to their compensation, but they know 
 
39 
 
 that the application of such a rule with its penalties will work 
 as a corrective of loose methods of calling men and getting 
 them out of terminals. There are many hours spent by en- 
 gineers on their engines at terminals waiting for delayed 
 trains and for other causes when by the exercise of a little 
 foresight on the part of the officers in immediate charge, these 
 men could be at their homes, in many cases getting needed 
 rest. 
 
 The showing made by the companies in their Exhibits as 
 to the estimated cost of the adoption of this rule is of itself 
 an argument in favor of the rule. It proves our claim and 
 what we are seeking to correct — that there is a whole lot of 
 unnecessary lying around terminals, the burden of which now 
 falls entirely upon the men. Put this rule into effect and if a 
 dollar of overtime is paid under it some officer or officers will 
 be required to explain the reason why. Under such a rule the 
 calling of the men and getting them out of terminals will be 
 zealously watched, with the result there will be a whole lot 
 of slack taken up and the amount of overtime paid under this 
 rule will be practically negligible. 
 
 For years this question has been up; almost every time a 
 committee met with their officials they have gone back home 
 with promises that it would be remedied, but no improvement 
 was made. We believe that the only way to stop it is to re- 
 quire them to pay for this time. It is something they have 
 wholly in their hands to regulate, and when it costs a railroad 
 company money our experience has been that they very 
 promptly find a remedy for it. The railroads object to it for 
 two reasons : First — because they realize if granted it means 
 increased care and watchfulness on the part of all concerned 
 in the handling of the engine crews. Second — it will abolish 
 the practice now in effect in many places of requiring crews 
 to work an hour or two in yards making up their train when 
 by fast movement they can get them over the road without 
 overtime. We give a margin of one hour, which should be 
 ample time to get the train out. 
 
40 
 
 FINAL TERMINAL DELAY. 
 
 "Final terminal delay will be paid for at the end of the 
 trip when delayed more than 30 minutes between yard limit 
 boards governing yard to which train is to be delivered and 
 the point of final relief, and to be paid for at the overtime rate 
 according to class of engine on the minute basis." 
 
 The purpose of this Rule is corrective; the men would 
 prefer to have what the rule would accompHsh rather than any 
 compensation that might be paid under it. 
 
 The very same reasons assigned for Initial Terminal De- 
 lay would apply in final terminal delay, except that the pur- 
 pose of the latter is to insure men that after they have made 
 their trip and arrived at their terminal they will be released 
 within a reasonable time. As it is now, if an engineer makes 
 a freight run of, say, 130 miles, under the rule his overtime 
 would not begin until after thirteen hours, but if he was for- 
 tunate enough to have made the trip in ten hours the company 
 has the right to hold him the other three hours at his terminal 
 without extra payment. He has already given them the equiv- 
 alent of thirteen hours in miles, and has delivered his full quota 
 for a day's work and owes them nothing. There is no good 
 reason why he should be expected to give from one to five 
 hours more of his time for nothing. That is what the Com- 
 pany expects at the present when they demand both the hours 
 and miles. 
 
 Nearly all terminal delays such as being blocked in yards 
 behind switch crews, scale crews, bad order cars left on the 
 track headed in on and various other happenings that are con- 
 stantly occurring where road engineers are left to the mercy 
 of yard men to release them, when the spirit moves them, are 
 avoidable. When the principle we request is put into effect 
 and every time there is a delay compelled to pay for it, it will 
 promptly cease. 
 
 We believe this principle, if applied, would result in a 
 saving and benefit to the Company in economy and use of their 
 engines, give them more time to do necessary repair work, 
 
41 
 
 and send their engines out on the road in better shape. This 
 request is nothing new, it has been granted and is now in ef- 
 fect on over fifty (50) of the main trunk lines throughout the 
 country. 
 
 HOURS OF SERVICE LAW. 
 
 "Amendment of Section E of the Application of the Six- 
 teen Hour Law. 
 
 Engineers in train service tied up under the law will be 
 paid continuous time from initial point to tie-up point. When 
 they resume duty on continuous trip they will be paid from 
 the tie-up point to the next tie-up point, or to the terminal on 
 the basis of a minimum day. It is understood that this does 
 not permit running engines through terminals or around other 
 crews at terminals unless such practice is permitted under the 
 pay schedule." 
 
 Our proposal would modify the present rule of payment 
 when engineers are tied up under the Law by guaranteeing 
 them a minimum day of 100 miles for the continuation of their 
 trip to their original destination terminal. The present allow- 
 ances guarantee actual hours or miles, whichever is the greater. 
 
 Representatives of the roads emphasize that what we are 
 asking for in this respect is different from that we agreed to for 
 the Western Roads. That is true, and the inference might be 
 drawn that we did not ask the different Western Roads to pay 
 the 100 mile minimum for the second trip. Our presentation 
 of this question to the Western Roads is contained in a letter 
 dated Chicago, April 9, 1908, to a conference committee of 
 General Managers, and Rule 3 of that presentation reads "Em- 
 ployees in engine and train service tied up on the road in 
 accordance with the Law shall be considered as having com- 
 menced a new trip when again going on duty and shall be paid 
 regular schedule allowances for such trips the same as if such 
 trip has been started from an established terminal." The 
 record of the proceedings show that we maintained that po- 
 sition to the end, and that it was yielded only in the spirit of 
 compromise and to avoid the enforcement of our views through 
 
42 
 
 other methods rather than any surrender of the principle or 
 acknowledgment that the present method is equitable. 
 
 Since this agreement we have been granted the same re- 
 quest on eight (8) of the large systems in the southeastern 
 territory. 
 
 Under the present rule when an engineer has made a trip 
 of between 14 and 16 hours and has not reached his terminal, 
 he may be tied up on the road and paid under the rule. When 
 he resumes work at the end of the regular rest period (eight or 
 ten hours) and continues his trip to the terminal, he is paid 
 miles or hours, whichever may be the greater. We assert that 
 when a man has tied up under the law he has made a trip and 
 the tie-up point is the terminal of that trip; that when he starts 
 out again he begins a new trip with the tie-up point as a ter- 
 minal, and considering the loss to the tied-up crew by reason 
 of crews running around them, the claim for a minimum day 
 of 100 miles for the trip following the tie-up is both consisteiit 
 and equitable. 
 
 If an engineer's regular turn is taken from him through no 
 fault of his own there should be at least partial compensation 
 for the loss. In nearly every case where he is tied up there is a 
 loss because other crews that were behind him when he started 
 run around him while he was tied up for rest and stand ahead 
 of him out of the destination terminal. This means those crews 
 which have passed him while he was tied up will go out of the 
 terminal ahead of him, which means a longer lay-over at the 
 terminal than he would have had, perhaps at a terminal away 
 from home, also loss of time curtailing his ability to earn. 
 There are just so many hours in a man's lifetime that he has to 
 sell, and no matter how hard he may work in the future he 
 never recovers the hours lost. 
 
 The Exhibit submitted to your Board taken from the 
 records of the Interstate Commerce Commission shows that 
 the margin between the actual time of the trips and the legal 
 limit is not very great. It is accounted for by the slow move- 
 ment of the train due to heavy loading in order to make the 
 
43 
 
 train haul showing that you have before you. In the Exhibits 
 of the Railroads relative to tie-ups under the law, in accounting 
 for these unusual trips, weather conditions are usually ascribed, 
 but this is only part of the story. Other causes may run all 
 the way from congestion to engine failures due to lack of 
 proper repairs. But in all of these the heavy train load is im- 
 mediately the controlling factor. 
 
 We also ask in the application of this rule it be understood 
 that this does not permit running engines through terminals 
 or around other crews at terminals unless such practice is 
 permitted under the schedule. 
 
 As explained to your Board we do not believe there is a 
 single good reason why any crew should be sixteen hours get- 
 ting over a division. It should and can be prevented. 
 
 There is no question but that many officials objected to 
 the enactment of the "Hours of Service Law" and when oppor- 
 tunity presented have made it just as irksome as possible. This 
 will be denied, of course, by the officials, yet when a crew is 
 tied up in zero weather at some siding where there is nothing 
 to eat, and no place to sleep (when within five or six miles 
 either way they could obtain both) it is hard to make that 
 crew believe it was not intentional. 
 
 STANDARDIZATION 
 
 "It is understood that existing rates of pay or better work- 
 ing conditions shall not be reduced by the rates or rules hereby 
 agreed upon, nor shall General Committees of Adjustment be 
 debarred from taking up with their respective Managers mat- 
 ters not decided at this conference." 
 
 The purpose of this rule is apparent. It seeks to preserve 
 any conditions of pay or rules on any line better or of more 
 advantage to the employees than those contained in these 
 proposals. This is a principle that has been well established 
 for the last fifteen years, and the principle has been continued 
 in concerted movements not only as to enginemen but train- 
 men as well. The direction of the labor movement is forward, 
 
44 
 
 not backward. We are here to improve the wages of the men 
 and not to reduce their pay. When the rates on the different 
 Hnes were made between the companies and their employees 
 they were usually the result of mutual compromise and con- 
 cession, with the result that if a company granted a certain 
 rate on a certain run, or conceded a certain rule that was 
 higher in comparison with a similar service on another road, 
 the employees may have accepted a rate or a rule for another 
 service that was lower in comparison with similar service on 
 that other road. So that a fair comparison could lie only in 
 the value of the schedule as a whole to the engineers of one 
 road with the schedule as a whole of another road. If we find 
 a certain condition today that has grown up as a result of this 
 method of settlement whereby a certain rate or a rule on some 
 particular railway may be higher or better than is asked as a 
 standard for the entire territory, it would be manifestly un- 
 just to the men of that road to take from them that which 
 has long been recognized as right and equitable. 
 
 There was much said during the hearings of the "Feather- 
 bed" Rules on the N. Y., N. H. & H. R. R., and we had the 
 testimony of the Vice-President of that road to the effect that 
 the scheme of standardization was a "fake" because it does 
 not recognize the desire of the company to eliminate certain 
 rules that have been in effect on this system for a considerable 
 number of years and which happen to be more than are re- 
 quested generally as standard for the territory. There is an- 
 other side to this. According to Mr. Horn's testimony, page 
 825 of the printed proceedings, his engines ran about 14,000,- 
 000 passenger train miles in the calendar year 1911. His rate 
 of pay for passenger engineers is $.041 per mile for all en- 
 gines. The New York Central rate is $.0415 for all engines; 
 so that the New Haven road got its passenger engine service 
 for the year for about $7,000 less than the New York Central 
 for the same number of miles. Which has the "feather bed" 
 in this case, and how long have they laid upon it? If we are 
 to consider the abstract principle of uniformity and permit 
 
45 
 
 the New Haven System to be relieved of its so-called "feather 
 bed" rules, why should we not take into account other rates 
 which far exceed in cost those which have prevailed in their 
 territory and which they have escaped these many years? The 
 rates of the Pennsylvania Road, Central R. R. of New Jersey, 
 P. & L. E., and Reading for Passenger Service exceed the 
 present rate in effect on the New Haven road and have ex- 
 ceeded it for a number of years. This comparison is empha- 
 sized to a greater degree in freight service. The present rate 
 on the New Haven is $4.65 for all engines. The minimum 
 rate on the New York Central is $4.75, while the larger en- 
 gines are paid $4.85. The minimum rate on the Pennsylvania 
 is $4.85, and the Reading $4.75. Which has the "feather bed" 
 in these instances? You may analyze the conditions between 
 the New Haven and other roads all down through the several 
 rules and aside from the one instance — that of pay for miles 
 and overtime after ten hours — the present conditions of pay 
 and rules in the schedules taken as a whole in the territory on 
 other roads are better than the New Haven for engineers. 
 
 Fundamentally, the rates we request are standard mini- 
 mum rates and there is nothing to prevent employees of any 
 line and the officers of the company from agreeing upon a 
 higher rate than these minimums if they mutually agree that 
 conditions warrant same. On this assumption there is no 
 warrant or justification for disturbing rates higher than these 
 minimum rates proposed. 
 
 In Railroad Exhibits Vol. 3, page 169, Mr. Atterbury tells 
 of the series of conferences held between the management and 
 the representatives of the engineers. He states "Representa- 
 tives of the employees raised a considerable number of objec- 
 tions to the mileage basis * * * the mileage basis was 
 finally adopted." Quoting from the stenographic notes of the 
 meeting mentioned above Mr. Myers, General Manager, said 
 "You are only doing what all other classes of service have 
 considered reasonable, or you are asked to do only what they 
 consider reasonable. If it does not work fairly and it is not 
 
46 
 
 right, we will change it. Try it and see where it lands. I 
 think it is a fair proposition." Clearly showing the mileage 
 basis and working conditions were forced on the engineers 
 standardized by the Company. 
 
 Mr. Atterbury in his statement, pages 734, 738, 739 and 
 741, lays particular stress on our request for standardization 
 and the injustice of the saving clause "that where wages are 
 higher they will not be reduced by this award." 
 
 He forgot to tell you that the Pennsylvania Lines East, 
 where he is Vice-President in charge of operation, had already 
 recognized the justice of this claim and has it incorporated in 
 their "Book of Regulations," the initial paragraph of which 
 clearly states "That the following rates of pay, and general 
 rules will apply alike to all territory covered by these regula- 
 tions — and that no existing higher rates shall be reduced." 
 
 This Article was found to be necessary not only to retain 
 the wages and working conditions that were better but to 
 make it possible to adjust the local grievances that would 
 arise that had nothing to do with the articles agreed upon in 
 the concerted movement, yet local and general ofificials at- 
 tempted to hide behind the award of the concerted movement 
 and claim they did not have the power to meet with the en- 
 gineers' committee or adjust any grievances, claiming "The 
 Conference Committee of Managers" alone had power to ad- 
 just any questions of local difference. The "Conference Com- 
 mittee of Managers" were not in session and it was impossible 
 to bring such cases before them. Unless the Board of Arbi- 
 tration expects to sit in session forever in the future and settle 
 questions that may arise relative to local conditions (that the 
 standard articles requested here have no bearing upon) then 
 some such Article as this we request must be provided. 
 
 CONCLUSION. 
 
 We ask your pardon for inflicting on you such a lengthy 
 "Brief," but the questions are so big and vital and so far reach - 
 
47 
 
 ing that even now we have only touched on a few of the many 
 phases of these questions. 
 
 We have tried to place before you the true facts as they 
 exist. We honestly believe these men are justly and equitably 
 entitled to all they ask, for if ever there was a class of men 
 that are conscientiously performing their duty and being true 
 to the trust placed in their hands, that class of men is the Lo- 
 comotive Engineers. The fact that years of training and the 
 load of responsibility they carry has made them conservative, 
 is no reason why the Railroads should seek to capitalize that 
 conservatism. 
 
 We leave our case with you, believing in the justice and 
 equity of it, and believing in the fairness and justice of you 
 who are going to decide the questions. 
 
 Respectfully submitted, 
 
 WARREN S. STONE, 
 Grand Chief Engineer Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers. 
 
CORNELL UNIVERSITY LIBRARY 
 
 3 1924 078 686 031 
 
 
 DATE 
 
 DUE 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 QAYLOHD 
 
 
 
 PRINTED IN U.S.A