^B 775 flfifl — IN THE — ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS BETWEEN THE EMPLOYES OF INDIANAPOLIS TRACTION AND TERMINAL COMPANY BY AND THROUGH THEIR COMMITTEE AND INDIANAPOLIS TRACTION AND TERMINAL COMPANY BEFORE THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF INDIANA, ACTING AS A VOLUNTARY BOARD OP ARBITRATION, THOMAS DUNCAN, Chairman, JOHN F. McCLURE, FRANK E. PAYNE, CHARLES J. MURPHY, JAMES L. CLARK. Central City Publishing Co., Printers. Indianapolis. GIFT OF I-nd I -aTf^a , Tucbh'c service ...^^ K^ xff> "IS"* 0^ 4 ^iv ..i^' Wednesday, January 7, 1914. Two O'clock P. M. The Commission Met Pto^'stmnt to Adjournment. Argument by W. H. Latta, Esq.^, Counsel for Respondent Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the Commission : Something has already been said by the gentleman who opened this debate of the importance of this proceeding. And preliminary to what I intend to say during the discus- sion, I wish to add also that it seems to me this proceeding is of the utmost importance, and that it may be the begin- ning of a new era in industrial matters in tliis State, and possibly in this country. That we need to avail ourselves of the privileges of arbitration and especially in industrial matters, it seems to me no one will seriously question. I haven't any late figures at my disposal but I noted a compu- tation of the number of strikes and the amount of losses in the United States compiled in the Encyclopedia Bri- tannica, which shows that from 1881 until 1905 there were 36,757 strikes in the United States, involving 181,407 dif- ferent establishments, throwing 8,703,824 persons out of employment; that between the years 1881 and 1900 there was lost through the medium of strikes in the United States $257,863,478 in wages alone, and during the same period the loss to employers reached a total of |122,731,- 121. Now, certainly, it is to the advantage of all persons who have to do with industrial disputes and disturbances, to avail themselves of arbitration, and one naturally wonders why it has not been more generally brought into play in the settlement of such disputes... The reasons perhaps are 359081 that, in the first place, there is very scant legal authority for arbitration, and especially is there none for compulsory arbitration at the present time; secondly, there has been no general rules formulated either by legislators or arbi- trators themselves in rendering decisions in which arbi- trators have been sitting, or in any other manner, whereby persons who have disputes may know with any degree of accuracy the lines that are to be followed in determining their rights by arbitration ; and third, I would say the un- satisfactory condtiion which oftentimes surround the choosing of arbitrators where they have to be chosen by the parties themselves; at least two-thirds of the arbitrators are, generally speaking, nothing more than attorneys for the persons engaged in the dispute. Now, it seems apparent that in view of these tremendous losses that have occurred, some legal method is about to be inaugurated whereby we may have in course of time compulsory arbitration, and this very proceeding marks the beginning of arbitration by an arm of the government itself, composed wholly of dis- interested arbitrators before whom the case may be tried substantially as cases are tried in court. Now, the only thing that remains, in my judgment, to make arbitration complete when these two points are passed, is that we shall seek out and determine and make clear and explicit the principles upon which such an arbitration shall pro- ceed, so that persons who submit themselves to arbitra- tion may know the manner in which they are to have their rights determined. We have in this country the Interstate Commerce Commission, with its promulgations of opinions and reports from time to time, and it does not seem impossible we shall soon have in this country a system of quasi jurisprudence emanating from boards of arbitration, whereby shall be made public and clear the rights of persons who submit themselves to arbitration. What does a man do who submits his case to arbitration? That is the very threshold of the inqury. Does he say, "I am perfectly willing some person shall compromise this case for me."? Does submitting his case to arbitration mean he is necessarily going to lose something? Does it mean he surrenders the guarantees of the constitution and the rights which he has acquired through enactment of law? That his rights are to be determined without ref- erence to the economic laws which govern his business and govern all business? I take it that it does not. I think the fact that that has not been made clear in the past has deterred many persons from bringing their controversies to Boards of Arbitration. If it is a settled proposition that a man who submits his case to arbitration is bound to lose something, that it is nothing more or less than a compro- mise arranged by some person or persons who may think this party might be satisfied with that, and the other party might be satisfied with the other, and in that way the parties can be brought together and further disputes prevented, then, arbitration, in my judgment, has received a blow from which it will never recover ; but, if arbitration means that a man may come before a board of arbitration and say, "I am conducting my business according to law; I am conducting it according to true economic principles; I am not violating any law of the land or any law of the humanities," that man may be sure that he has a right to win his arbitration, and whenever he is assured of that right, he will be very glad to submit his case to arbitration. So, I take it, gentlemen, it is not to be presumed here that either the committee or ourselves, in presenting this case to your Honors, as a Board of Arbitration, are to waive any rights which we have, but that we are to have this controversy determined in the light of the rights we do have, and to have those rights, if any, respected and en- forced. Now, an employer of labor clearly has certian rights with reference to his business that have been recognized by the courts and that seem well grounded in philosophy, and it is not inequitable that he should insist upon them. A fair presentation, it seems to me, is contained in the fol- lowing opinion of the Supreme Court of the State of Illi- nois in the case of O'Brien v. The People, 216 Illinois Supreme Court 354 : "No persons, individually or by combination, have the right to directly or indirectly interfere or dis- turb another in his lawful business or occupation, or to threaten to do so for the sake of compelling Iiim to do some act, which, in his judgment, his own interest does not require. * * * It is clear that it is unlawful and actionable for one man from unlawful motives to interfere with another's trade by fraud, misrepresentation, or by molesting his customers or those who would be customers, or by preventing others from working for him, or causing them to leave his employ by fraud or misrepresentation, or physical or moral intimidation or persuasion, with an intent to inflict an injury which causes loss. * * * Every man has a right under the law, as between himself and others, to full freedom in disposing of his own labor or capital according to his own will, and any one who invades that right without lawful cause or justification commits a legal wrong, and, if followed by an injury caused in consequence thereof, the one whose right is thus invaded has a legal ground of action for such wrong. Damage inflicted by fraud or misrepresentation, or by the use of intimidation, obstruction, or molestation, with malicious motives, is without excuse, and ac- tionable. "Under the foregoing authorities there can be no doubt that any attempt to coerce the Kellogg Switchboard & Supply Company into signing said agreement by threats to order a strike was unlaw- ful. It was violative of the clear legal right of the company, and was unjust and oppressive as to those who did not belong to the labor organizations. Nevertheless the strike was ordered, and thereafter plaintiffs in error sought by threats, intimidation and violence to prevent men and women from tak- ing the places of the strikers. "In the case of Mathews v. People, 202 111., in considering the free employment act, we said : 'An employer whose workmen have left him and gone upon a strike, particularly when they have done so without any justifiable cause, is entitled to contract with other laborers or workmen to fill the places of those who have left him. Any workman seeking work has a right to make a contract with such an employer to work for him in the place of any one of the men who have left him to go out upon a strike. Therefore, the prohibition contained in section 8 strikes at the right of contract, both on the part of the laborer and of the employer. It is now w^ell settled that the privilege of contracting is both a liberty and a property right. Liberty in- cludes the right to make and enforce contracts, be- cause the right to make and enforce contracts is included in the right to acquire property. Labor is property. To deprive the laborer and the employer of this right to contract wath one another is to vio- late section 2 of article 2 of the Constitution of Il- linois, which provides that 'no person shall be de- prived of life, liberty or property without due pro- cess of law.' It is equally a violation of the fifth and fourteenth amendments of the Constitution of the United States, which provide that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property with- out due process of law, and that no state shall de- prive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law, 'nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the lawns'." 6 There is a clear declaration that the right to contract at a price to be agreed upon is a property right protected by the constitution, both in the employer and in the em- ploye, so that whenever any man seeks to gain employ- ment, he has a right to offer his labor at such a price as is acceptable to him, and whenever any other man has em- ployment to offer he has a right to fix such a price as is ac- ceptable to him, and if it is also acceptable to the other party, there are the perfect elements of a contract. Now, we have to do here with the wages and conditions of this employment, ^^ithin the meaning of the contract under which this hearing is being held before your Honors. That contract provides that all grievances of every kind and character as to wages and conditions, shall, within five days of the resumption of the service, be presented to and taken up by the company. If I construe that contract correctly, it means this : That a complaint or a grievance is entitled to be granted by this Board of Arbitration, un- less previously granted by the Company, of course, under the provisions for making an agreement, if it is a just grievance. It must appear that there is a just reason for granting the gTievance, and that there is either a wage condition which ^delates the economic principles upon which employers and employes work, or there is a condi- tion of labor which violates the essential and substantial rights of the employes. Otherwise there is not a right in this case to have the grievance received and granted by this Commission. And that naturally brings us to this question : What wages is an employer bound to pay? Upon that, in the beginning, I wish to confine this portion of my remarks to the initial wage, that is, the wage which marks the instant when the mind of the person seeking employ- ment and the mind of the person offering employment meet upon the contract of employment, which in this case, as applying to the car service men, is shown to be twenty cents an hour. Now, the most that has b^en said, and as I apprehend, the extreme that can be said is this, and it was said this morning by Mr. Esary: "That no business has a right to exist where the conditions of labor are necessarily inimica- ble to life and health, or where the wages paid are not suf- ficient to support life, to maintain health and permit the reproduction of the race without mental, moral or eco- nomic deteriorations. If the conditions of employment in any particular shop or business are such as to necessarily impair life or endanger liealth, they ought not exist. If the wages in any kind of employment are such that they will not maintain life, that they will not permit of the marital relations, the .bringing of children into the world, and the rearing of those children without moral or eco- nomic deterioration, those wages are wrong. They are wrong because they violate what has been called here the principle of a living wage." How do we arrive at the living wage? We have had discussion after discussion during the progress of this case upon that subject. What is a living wage to one man, in a broad sense of the term as it has been applied here by the gentlemen Avho have preceded me, is not a living wage at all to another man. One man will thrive and will ac- quire property; he will educate his children; he will sur- round himself with not only the necessities but the com- forts of life, and emerge into a prosperous and satisfactory age on a rate of wages that to another man means poverty all the days of his exstence. So when you come to discuss the question of a living wage in its ethical sense, as has been talked about here, there is no standard at all. But 8 when you talk about a living wage in the sense that it will enable a man of frugal habits to live and bring up his fam- ily, support them to such an extent that his own strength and the strenglh of his family will not deteriorate, and educate them as well as he was educated, and produce a condition of livelihood whereby the race is not deteriorat- ing, then you have a living wage. And how do we find that living wage to be measured? It is measured by the law of supply and demand. There is no other measure; there never has been any other measure; there can be no other measure. The courts have recognized that many times and in many opinions, and they have on numerous occa- sions explained particularly that the employer is always at liberty to avail himself of the open market for securing his labor, and that the employe by a necessity must con- form to the law of supply and demand. This is the only method by which we can arrive at the question of the proper inital wage. I wish to read an extract from the case of Braceville Goal Co. V. People, decided by the Supreme Court of the State of Illinois on the 26th of October, 1903. I am read- ing from 35 Northeastern Reporter, on page 62 : "Section 2, article 2, of the constitution of this state guarantees that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. We said in the Frorer case, the words, 'due process of law' are to be held synonymous with 'the law of the land,' and, quoting from Millet V. People, 117 111. 294, 7 N. E. Rep. 631, said: 'And this means general public law binding upon all members of the community under all circum- stances, and not partial or private laws, affecting the rights of private individuals or classes of in- dividuals.' There can be no liberty, protected by government that is not regulated by such laws as will preserve the right of each citizen to pursue 9 his own advancement and happiness in his own way subject to the restraints necessary to secure the same right to all others. The fundamental principle upon which liberty is based in free and enlightened government is equality under the law of the land. It has accordingly been everywhere held that liberty, as that term is used in the con- stitution, means not only freedom of the citizen from servitude and restraint, but is deemed to em- brace the right of every man to be free in the use of his powers and faculties, and to adopt and pursue such a vocation or calling as he may choose subject only to the restraints necessary to secure the common welfare. Property, in its broader sense, is not the physical thing which may be the subject of ownership, but is the right of dominion, possession, and power of disposition which may he acquired over it. And the right of property preserved by the constitution is the right not only to possess and enjoy it, but also to acquire it in any lawful mode or by following any lawful in- dustrial pursuit wliich the citizen, in the exer- cise of the liberty guaranteed, may choose to adopt. Labor is the primary foundation of all wealth. The property whch each one has in his own labor is the common heritage. And, as an incident to the right to acquire other property, the liberty to enter into contracts by which labor may be employed in such way as the laborer shall deem most beneficial, and of others to employ such labor, is necessarily included in the consitutional guaranty. In the Frorer case we said: 'The priv- ilege of contracting is both a liberty and a property right, and if A. is denied the right to contract, and acquire property in the manner which he has hitherto enjoyed under the law, and which B., O. and D. are still allowed by the law to enjoy, it is clear that he is deprived of both liberty and property, to the extent that he is thus denied the right to contract' ; and quoted with approval : 'The man or the class forbidden the acquisition or enjoy- ment of the property in the manner permitted the 10 commiinity at large would be deprived of liberty in particulars of primary importance to his or their pursuit of happiness.' Cooley, Const. Lim. 393. It is undoubtedly true that the people in their representative capacity may, by general law, render that unlawful, in many cases, which had hitherto been lawful. But laws depriving par- ticular persons or classes of persons of rights en- joyed by the community at large to be valid must be based upon some existing distinction or rea- son, not applicable to others, not included within its provisions. Id. 391. And it is only when such distinctions exist that differentiate in important particulars persons or classes of persons from the body of the people, that laws having operation only upon such partcular persons or classes of persons have been held to be valid enactments. In the Millet case we held that it was not competent, un- der the constitution, for the legislature to single out operators of coal mines and impose restric- tions in making contracts for the employment of labor which were not required to be borne by other employers. And in the Frorer case a law singling out persons, corporations or associations engaged in mining and manufacturing, and de- priving them of the right to contract as persons, corporations and associations engaged in other business or vocation might lawfully do, was in vio- lation of the constitution, and void. "The act under consideration applies not to all corporations existing within the state, or to all that have been or may be organized for pecuniary profit under the general incorporation laws of the state. There is no attempt to make a distinction between corporations and individuals who may em- ploy labor. The slightest consideration of the act will demonstrate that many corporations that may be and are organized and doing business under the laws are not included -wdthin the designated corporations. No reason can be found that would require weekly payments to the employes of an electric railway that would not require like pay- 11 ment by an electric light or gas company ; to a cor- poration engaged in quarrying or lumbering that would not be equally applicable to a corporation engaged in erecting, repairing or removing buildings or other structures ; to mining that would not exist in respect of corporations engaged in making exca- vations and embankments for roads, canals, or other public or private improvements of like char- acter; that will apply to a street or elevated rail- way that will not make it equally important in other modes of transportation of freight and pas- sengers. The public records of the state will show and it is a matter of common knowledge, that very many corporations have been organized and are doing business in the state which necessarily em- ploy large numbers of men that are not included within the act under consideration. The restric- tion of the right to contract affects not only the corporation, and restricts its right to contract, but that of the employe as well. We need not repeat the argument of the Frorer case upon this point. An illustration of the manner in which it affects the employe, out of many that might be given, may be found in the conditions arising from the late un- settled financial affairs of the country. It is a mat- ter of common knowledge that a large number of manufactories were shut down because of the stringency in the money market. Employers of labor were unable to continue production for the reason that no sale could be found for the product. It was suggested in the interest of employers, as well as in the public interest, that employes con- sent to accept only so much of their wages as was actually necessary to their sustenance, reserving payment of the balance until business should re- vive, and thus enable the factories or workshops to be open and operated with less present expendi- tures of money. Public economists and leaders in the interest of labor suggested and advised this course. In this state, and under this law, no such contract could be made. The employe who sought to work for one of the corporations enumerated 12 in the act would find himself incapable of con- tracting as all other laborers in the state might do. The corporations would be prohibited entering into such a contract, and, if they did so, the con- tract would be voidable at the mil of the employe, and the employer subject to a penalty for making it. The employe would, therefore, be restricted from making such a contract as would insure to him support during the unsettled condition of af- fairs, and the residue of his wages when the pro- duct of his labors could be sold. They would, by the act, be practically under guardianship; their contracts voidable as if they were minors; their right to freely contract for and to receive the ben- efit of their labor, as others might do, denied them. "We need not extend this opinion by further discussion. The right to contract necessarily in- cludes the right to fix the price at which labor will be performed and the mode and time of pay- ment. Each are essential elements of the right to contract, and whosoever is restricted in either as the same is enjoyed by the community at large is deprived of liberty and property." They held a restricted act of that kind invalid. Now% any attempt, gentlemen, as it seems to me, in any sort of a legal proceeding to take away from the employer the right to resort to the general labor market in procuring his labor, and to take away from the employes the right to contract with reference to his labor at the price which he can get in the general labor market, is contrary to the very principles upon which we have builded our liberty -loving land. These men have a right to enter into a contract of that character and the employer has a right to do so and if they do do so they are exercising no more than the rights given them under the constitution, and any and every law that has ever been passed in any country so far as I have learned, attempting to interfere with that right, has been declared invalid. 13 There was a time, I believe, in England, a long time ago, after the great famine and plague, when there was an at- tempt made to pass laws regulating the price of labor. Those laws were enacted and other laws were re-enacted, and after a time they were all held invalid, and cast to the scrap heap sooner or later as being thoroughly imprac- ticable. Since the foundation of our own government, it has been the rule that the labor market is open and free, and every man has a right to resort to it in procurng his labor. Various reasons have been advanced here why it would be a very nice thing to break away from that rule. It has been said that these men desire more pay. Men have come upon this stand and have been asked, "Would you like to have a house with seven rooms?" "Would you like to have a house with a bath?" "Would you' like to have more pay?" Of course, they would like to have more pay. Ev- ery man would like to get more for his labor than he is getting, but that is not a reason for advancing the price of labor. If it were, we would soon see every laborer getting as much pay as anybody else, without reference to the char- acter of the labor performed or the qualifications of the man x>erforming it, with the result that industry would be killed. It has been said here these men could live better and they could have more of the comforts of life and that they could enjoy things they cannot now enjoy. That may be true, but is that a reason for advancing the price of la- bor? Is that a good reason why any one particular em- ployer should be sought out and told this : "You shall ad- vance the price of the laborers employed in your indrstry." That may be a good reason for advancing the prices of all labor; it may be a good reason why in the course of time there should e an upward tendency in wages, but as 14 applied to any particular employer, it seems perfectly clear that it is a poor reason. Bearing upon that, I was interested in reading a letter sent to the News and printed in its columns entitled ''The Voice of the People," a letter from a public school teacher, who said this: "To THE Editor of the News : "Sir: — Reading the experiences of the car men before the Public Service Commission causes me to think that they are better off than four-fifths, at least, of our citizens. Take the school teachers, for example. We commence on |450 and it is increased only |50 a year until |875 is reached. It takes eight years to reach the maximum salary. Out of this we pay into the pension fund 2 per cent., at- tend classes, join associations, etc., until on |875 we really do well to have a net $800. Out of this |800 we nearly all have some one dependent upon us as a mother or sick sister, etc. We have to dress in a respectable manner, as we come in contact with cultured, refined people. You can see that, as the conductors, we can not eat porterhouse steak either, and also use butterine. They tell these things as though they were in a class by themselves. "Their wages are ahead also of drivers, clerks, etc. The average man clerk, I am told, receives •between |12.00 and |20.00 a week and does not re- ceive free transportation to his business." So, while it might be very true that to receive greater wages would enable any employe to live in greater luxury, or with more conveniences, or in a style that would better suit his taste, the argument advanced is inapplicable to the contention we now have before this Commission. It has been shown, gentlemen, that this Company pays as its initial wage to the employes entering its service the high- est rate that is paid in this community for unskilled labor, 15 common labor. The rates of wage for unskilled labor run from seventeen and a half to twenty cents an hour. These men are started at twenty cents an hour. They are taken from all the walks of life. Men have appeared before this Commission who have been drivers, firemen, clerks, butch- ers; who have come from every conceivable walk of life amongst the laboring classes, and have sought employment freely from this Company at twenty cents an hour. It is in evidence here that large numbers of men seek employ- ment, that the Company has ten times as many men pre- senting themselves for employment as can be employed. Now, it will not do to say that twenty cents an hour is not a living wage. If it is the highest wage established for un- skilled labor in this community, it must be a living wage. Men who work for less than a living wage are nothing more than slaves, and we have no slaves among us. A man who is offered less than a living wage will not work for that wage. A man who seeks employment at twenty cents an hour, thereby demonstrates that the employment he seeks does pay a living wage — what is more frequently called, and seems to me better called, the "going" wage. Now, gentlemen, as bearing upon this subject, I would like to review briefly the testimony of some of the wit- nesses who have testified here before this Commission, and I have placed upon your Honors' desk for your convenience in this connection, the wage scale of each man. I think the testimony of these witnesses reviewed briefly in connec- tions with the wage scale, the actual wage received, and ac- tual hours worked by each man, will be very helpful. Now, Frederick Sellers was the first man. He is employed in the track and service department as a motorman at twenty-five cents an hour. He has been a motorman eight years. He has a wife and two children. 16 He did not quit the service on October 31st; he quit No- vember 1st. He did not know of the strike until Saturday morning, "Twice I have refused to work overtime when they wanted me to. I have never presented any grievance. I pay ten dollars rent: |7.75 to |10.25 for my coal; six to seven dollars a week for my groceries. I buy shoes at |4.00 a pair." I believe he said he bought three pairs in the course of a year. "I don't know any place I can earn as much as I do now." Now, there is a man, who in the month of June earned 181.00, and he had three days off. He worked one long day in that month. In the month of July he earned $84.50. He had four days off in that month and worked two long days. In the month of August he earned $77.00. He had four days off and one short day in which he only worked seven hours. In the month of September he earned $78.50 and he had four days off, and he worked one day nine hours. The other days were ten, eleven and twelve hours. In the month of October he earned $83.50. He had two days off. In the month of November he went on strike until the 11th and went back to work on the 11th. He has lost three days since the 11th, and drew $42.60 as the amount of his wages for the month of November. Now, does that present a picture, gentlemen, in which this man shows he has a just grievance against this Com- pany as to his rate of wage? He has no special trade or anything of that kind. He has been with this Company eight years and has worked himself up to the point where he makes from $81.00 to $84.50 a month, on an average of about six days a week. If he has not saved any money, it is not hard to see why he has not. He burns coal of the most expensive kind, for which he somettimes pays $10.25 a ton, he says. He buys clothing more expensive than is 17 necessary. He has a right to, of course; I don't question that. He buys shoes at |4 a pair. George Marott says, "You can get the best shoe there is made for |3. If you do not want to pay for style, you don't have to." His grocery bills run from |6 to |7 a week, an average of a dollar a day for groceries. Even living at that rate, which is lib- eral, that man has an ample chance at the wages he is get- ting, to get ahead in this world, if he desires to do so. Take the next man : Harry Walls: He is a pipe fitter in the shop department. He has a wife and three children. He has been working for the Compau}^ six years. His wages run from f 17.50 to |25.00 with an average of |18.00 a week. He is paid time and a half for overtime. He has bought a home and finished pay- ing for it. He says "I keep my family comfortably." It is shown by this man's wage scale that he works some over- time and that he is allowed for it. He earned in the month of June 181.26. He earned in July $89.38. He earned in August 199.28. He earned in September |92.95. He earned in October |98.18. Now, has that man presented to your Honors a reason why he should receive an increase in pay at the hands of this Company? James L. Hayden, the next man : He is in the car service department as a motorman. He makes twenty-five cents an hour, and lias testified he has been a motorman eight years. He has a wife and four children. He pays twelve dollars a month rent; his groceries cost from |8.00 to $10.00 a week. He testified he made out a complaint sev- eral years ago. He made one complant in the eight years he worked for the Company, only one. He said he used to 18 be a fireman on a railroad and made |80 to |105 a month, and that his wife was not satisfied because he was away from home so much, and so he took employment with this Company. "I did not join before the strike, and I did not know the strike had been called until the next morning afterward." That man in June drew |81.17, and he was off work three days. In the month of July he drew |86.65, and he was off work two days. In the month of August he drew 178.28, and he was off work five days. In the month of September his wages were $86.28. He was off work two days. In the month of October he was off one day, and drew $84.17. He has been working steadily since the men went back to work, since the strike. He lost two days in the balance of November and got $61.50, after having laid off work a full week. There is a man that ought to be able to support his wife and children on the wages he is getting. He ought to do more than that. He ought to be able to do as Tommy Mul- rey has done — educate his children and acquire something for his old age. He is making a handsome rate of wage for a man that has no trade or special qualifications. Here is Mat McOarty : He has been a conductor twenty-three years. He has a wife and seven children. He complains his hours were too long and said ten or eleven hours were enough for a man to work. He said, "I have had some grievances settled sat- isfactorily and others I have not had adjusted." The one that was not adjusted was the ticket booth matter. "I have accumulated property worth $4,500 to $5,000. I began at fourteen cents and am now getting twenty-five cents." He testified, "I have the run I want. I would like to have one day in seven without working. They always listened to my complaints and were always courteous to me. I 19 found out about the strike about midnight when my boy came home." Mat McCarty, in the month of June drew $86.68, and he was off one day. In the month of July he drew 181.11, and he was off four days. In the month of August he drew |87.35, and he was off one day. In Sep- tember he drew $81.10, and he was off three days, and had one short day on which he worked two hours and fifty- eight minutes. In October he drew |89.36. He was off one day and had one short day. That short day he worked two hours and thirteen minutes. After the strike period he lost three days and the week of the strike, and still drew 162.37 for the month of November. Now, what just complaint has Mat McOarty? He has been with this Company for twenty-three years. He is a man without any particular education. He is not fitted even to sell tickets at the ticket booth, because he has not the qualifications to enable him to do it. He is a good conductor; he can be a good conductor and run his car and attend to that part of the business. He knows that. The Company has kept him in its employ and advanced him from fourteen cents an hour to twenty-five cents an hour. He has accumulated property. He has raised seven children. He has a competency, and he is still able at the end of that time to earn from $80.00 to almost $90.00 a month. Now take Glenn Thompson : He is a motorman and earns twenty cents an hour. He was twenty-one in April, 1913. He is an extra man and testified he made from $8.00 to $14.00 a week. He said: "I joined the union before the strike. I signed a with- drawal, but not of my own free will. I did it to hold my job. I deceived Mr. Mahoney to hold my job. I worked at 20 the Union Station previously for seventeen and a half cents an hour, and I worked at Atlantic City for seventeen and a half cents an hour ; I worked at Pittsburg for seven- teen and a half cents an hour ; I worked with the Big Four bridge gang at seventeen and a half cents an hour." Now, he has been with this company and earning twenty cents an hour. Mr. Thompson began work, as far as this shows, on the 24th day of June. He was off two days during June, the 30th and 31st, He worked six days and drew |11.69. In the month of July he drew 150.86, and he was off three days during that month. It can be seen there that during the month of July he drew some short runs and some long runs, but on an average he worked somewhere in the neighborhood of ten or ten and one-half hours. Taking the good with the bad, his first month of employment with this company on the extra list brought him |50.86. The next month in order, in August, he drew $56.73 and he was off one day. There was only one day in the month of August that man did not get some work. His experience on th^ extra list for the month of August totaled him |56.73. In September he was off two days and he totaled |56.93. In the month of October he missed two days and he totaled $51.83, and in the month of November, even after the strike, he totaled $38.72, counting out the week of the strike. Now he had made $1.75 a day working at the Union Sta- tion in this city ; he had made $1.75 a day in Atlantic City ; he had made $1.75 a day at Pittsburg; and working with the Big Four bridge gang. This is the best wage he has ever made in his life and by going into this extra list and sticking to it, he has been able to make more than $50.00 every month that he worked for this company at twenty cents an hour. Does that look as though he has a just 21 right to complain? Why, he thought so much of the job he had with this company that he deceived Mr. Mahoney for the purpose of holding his job. He said so himself. Newton D. Hilbs: He is a car service man. He is a motorman. Age 24. He has been employed by the company three years. He has a wife and baby. He has a regular run. He is en- titled to have his run every day. He said, "I joined the union. Mr. Mahoney told me I was in bad company, and I told him I did not belong, but I did. I went on strike . I used to work at Cincinnati at twenty cents an hour and I worked in a butcher shop at eight dollars a week, and I worked as polisher at the Keyless Lock Company, but I did not make as much as I am making now." Mr. Hiles in the month of June worked fairly steady. He lost two days and he made $60.90. In the month of July he only made |49.24 because he failed to work. Seven days in that month he did not show up for work. He voluntarily threw away one-fourth of his earning capacity in the month of July. In the month of August he made 161.64. He worked better. He only lost two days in the month of August. There were one or two days on which he did not finish out his run. One day he ran three hours and thirty-five minutes and another day three hours and five minutes, and his run calls for nine hours and ten minutes but running two short days and not working at all on two other days, he made it up on three occasions by working longer and cleaned up $61.64. In August his rate advanced from twenty-two to twenty-three cents because he had been with the company three years. In September he made $61.33. He failed to work four days that month. In October he made $63.02. In that month he did not 22 t work three days. One day he. worked only four* hours and 32 minutes. Another day he only worked 3 hours and 32 minutes. Another day he worked only three hours and 36 minutes. This is a regular man. He worked a part of the day because he wanted to work a part of the day, but yet that man, not working steadily; not working all the time he had the opportunity to work, he is able to make $60.00 a month.. That is the best wage he ever made in his life. He said himself that when Mr. Mahoney asked him if he did not belong to this union, he told an untruth about it. He did not want to lose his place. It was more than he had ever made. Is he in a, position to come here, gentlemen, and ask you to forcibly compel this company to pay more than it is necessary to pay in the open market for labor? He is making the highest wage he ever made in his life, and if he needs more money, he can work more days and more hours. A. I. McCray: He is a conductor. He makes 23 cents an hour. He has been with the company this time three years. He has been with the company several times, eight years in all. He says : "I get |15.18 a week for seven days. I pay 110.00 rent; grocery bill |6.00 a week. I can hardly live." That is what McCray said. He said, "I can hardly live." Let us examine Mr. McCray's record here. In June, from the fourth day to the 16th, day he did not work at all, and he missed again on the 31st, and yet he drew |42.70. In the month of July he was off from the 12th to the 16th, and he drew |63.60, evidently a pretty high wage for him, because in the month of August he dropped back. He could not stand that much prosperity. In August he 23 missed on the 7th, 8th, 12th, 14th, 15th, 16th, 21st and on the 31st. He is a regular man. He has heen with the company three years and has a right to his run every day he will take it out. He drops back that month to |53.91. The next month he comes up a little better, he works more steadily. And he made |64.03; although in that month he missed three days. In October he fell back again. In October he did not work on the 3rd, the 10th and the 24th, and he did not work from the 27th to the 31st. He missed, you see, almost one-fourth of that month, and drew |52.98. Now, that man works very irregularly. You can see he worked one month until he made about |65.00 and the next month he dropped back to |52.00, because he only worked about three-fourths of the time. And yet he said to you, gentlemen, "I can hardly live." His further tes- timony was: "Before the strike, about five years ago, I complained. The Bridge was out, and Mr. Mahoney said we ought to be satisfied." It was about his not having enclosed vestibule. "In a few days they had a temporary vestibule, and Mr. Mahoney told me to go to work. Late- ly I went to him about my wife and Mr. Padgett. I was called up about the union. I told him, 'It is up to you, spit her out.' " When Mr. Mahoney asked him if he wanted to keep his position with this company, tliat is what he said : "It is up to you, spit her out." You gentlemen remember his conduct |here before this commission. I will not call attention to it specifically, but he was not courteous to the members of this commission in the man- ner in which he conducted himself upon the witness stand. "This is the fifth time I have worked for the company. I have no complaints to make of the inspectors. I think their reports are honestly made. I learned the strike was called the morning after, and I joined on October 2nd. I 24 would not work with a non-union man, even if this board ordered it." Afterwards he came back on the stand and retracted that statement. J. W. Miller: Miller was discharged on the 17th of September. He has a wife and four children. He has worked for the com- pany four and one-half years. He joined the union in October. In October he talked to Mr. Mahoney, and Mr. Mahoney wanted to know if he had joined, and he said no. Miller had a good many complaints to make against the company, and he was pretty bitter. Let us see, when you come to consider his wage scale, whether or not he had any right to complain of the wages he earned from this company. In the month of June he failed to work five days and in addition to that on one day he only worked 3 hours and 41 minutes; on another day he only worked 1 hour and 23 minutes. His wages that month were |63.40, practically for three-fourths of a month's work. In the month of July he only made $36.82. He didn't work on the 2nd and he did not work from the 8th to the 24th. He did not show up at all for nearly half that month and he only made $36.82. In August he did better. He missed four days, and worked three short days, and made |67.94. In September he worked until the 12th, losing the 1st and 2nd, and then he did not work any more, and was discharged on the 17th. That is the record of Mr. Miller. When he worked, he could make $67.00 and something a month, and w^hen he only made $36.00 and something a month, it was because he did not work. 25 Robert A. McDaniel: Age thirty-two. "I have a wife and three children, I began work in May, 1912." He said, "I work eighteen and a fourth hours and get ten hours' pay." He said, "I haven't been able to save." He was on the committee that went before the strike with Mr. Kinder to see Mr. Todd and left with him the demand. "I joined the union. Before this union was here, the people treated us like dogs. On my wages I cannot comfortably clothe and keep my chil- dren." Let us see what his wages show. In the month of June he drew* |41.20 and he did not work on the 5th and did not work from the 20th to the 24th. He worked a short day on the 25th and did not work on the 31st. In the month of July he drew |45.10. He did not work at all from the 9th to the 13th, both inclusive, and he did not work on the 31st. This man is losing about one-fourth of each month in which he does not work at all. In August he worked a little better. He lost the 1st, 17th and 18th, and worked a short day on the 23rd, and his wages for the month were |53.32. Now, in September he did not work at all from the 14th to the 24th, both inclusive, and he did not work on the 31st, so his wages dropped back to |40.52. In October he got |46.87, and failed to work seven days. Now, that is the man who says to you, gentlemen, as the ground for raising his wages, "I haven't been able to save." Mr. Payne: Is he an extra man or a regular man? Mr. Latta : He is a regular man. He has been with the company since May, 1912. Mr. Clark: He seems to have short runs all the time. 26 Mr. Latta: He has some short runs, evidently. Seven hours and 53 minutes, that is almost eight hours, and then he advanced until his hours were nine hours, and then his later runs were all ten hours. Earl Galvin: He never worked but four days in his life. He said he reported four days and got four days work. That was after the strike, and I assume he is not especially interest- ed in this controversy. Thomas B. Stearns: He has been a motorman since January 11th. He has a wife and two children. "This is the third time I have worked for the company." "Before the strike," he said, "I made seven or eight or nine dollars a week. I barely existed." Then he went on to say he had at one time worked as attendant at an insane hospital out west at 135.00 a month and moved from there to Logansport, and became an attendant in a hospital there and made |25.00 a month. He worked also in a broom factory and had a broom factory of his own. He was fair enough to say Mr. Mahoney always treated him like a man. Stearns is on the extra list, of course, because he began to work — according to this he said he was employed on January 11th. I do not know why he did not work the first part of June. Anyway, from the 21st to the 31st of June he lost one day, and he got |20.70 for the days he did work. In July he got work every day, .some days short, but his wages for the month were |54.66. In August he got a higher rate, he made $70.00. He testified he was detailed on special duty part of the time in August with what he called the sluggers. He got twenty-five cents an hour for 27 that period. So that month he got |70.00. He went back to work on the 6th of September and worked all excep^, two days the balance of the month. He made |47.00 from the 6th to the end of the month. Then in October he did not work regularly. He made |38.65. He lost nearly a third of that month. Since the strike he has been work- ing more regularly again, although two or three days he only made short time. Now, Mr. Stearns, when he worked, regularly, made good pay, and got about |54.66 a month ; at that rate, on the extra list. Paul Smith : He is a motorman, age 24. He has a wife and no chil- dren. It is the second time he has worked for the com- pany. He pays four dollars a week rent, and does light housekeeping. He pays a grocery bill of five to seven dollars a week, and takes two meals away from home. He buys clothing on credit. He says he was discharged. He made |48.17 in June, failing, however, to work about four or five days of that time, and up until he was discharged in July, he made fair time, except he had two short days. By the 21st of July he had earned |39.69. He has not been in the employ of the company since the 22nd of July. A. H. Eay: He had been a conductor since the 16th of February. He was called in about his bond and went to see the bond men and they would not give him any information and he could not work without a bond, and he had to quit. His employment terminated the 1st day of September. He was on the extra list in the month of June. He did not work on the 5th and did not work from the 11th to the 16th, and he did not work on the 31st. His wages for the rest of the month were |34.50. In the month of July he 28 made |48.95. He worked more regularly. In August he made 149.70, so that he was doing fairly well in the extra list at twenty cents an hour at the time he got in trouble about his bond. Claude Kinder: He is a conductor; married; one boy; he testified he made |14.40 a week. He pays |11.00 a month rent. His wife attends to all bills and he don't know about his bills. He says he has not saved anything. But Kinder with a wife and one child, made in the month of June, |65.07 ; in July he made |62.19; in August he made |57.77, and he failed to work several days. In September he made |60.31 ; in October up until the 29th, counting out about three days he lost before that time, he made |55.61. He had not been making a bad rate of wage. He has a regular run. He laid off on an average about four or five days every month according to this, and several days each month he only worked two or three hours, and yet he made a fairly good wage. B. E. Cook: He was a witness for the committee; he is a motorman on the extra list at twenty cents an hour. His employ- ment terminated on the 23rd of June. He had worked eighteen months — ^no, he is on the extra list. "I have a wife and two children. I quit I was called to the office about running away from a man near the Fair Grounds, and Mr. Mahoney told me after he heard about it that I might just as well quit." He said, "I don't know why I quit." He said, "I could not say I was satisfied with the wages, but I could not do any better. I worked at New- port, Kentucky, at from twenty to twenty-three cents an hour. My run here was over |15.00 a week. Since I have 29 been away from the company I have worked in a lumber mill at twenty cents an hour and drivers there get nine to twelve dollars a week." I have the statements beginning with the 1st of June at the time his last raise was granted, and most of his employment was prior to that time, but he said he was making |15.00 a week, more than he ever made anywhere else. I want to avoid being tedious in analyzing this tes- timony, but I felt when I made these notes and saw they were applicable to the wage scale, that it was quite im- portant. Chairman Duncan: You have until tomorrow noon. Mr. Latta : I will go on a little way. A. L. Deal: He is twenty-two years old and single. He says, how- ever, he partially supports his mother and brother who live in Seymour. He was employed in May, 1913. He is on the extra list. He has worked for this company three times. He says his wages clear through the extra list would average fll.OO a week. He pays |5.50 to |6.00 a week for board, and |1.25 a week for room rent. He was first discharged by Mr. Tretton for stealing. He was cautioned by Mr. Tretton for losing out, that is, failing to report, and then he was discharged for insulting a lady at 34th and Illinois streets. He was arrested during the progress of the strikes, but acquitted. The last time he went to see Mr. Mahoney, Mahoney said he would give him another chance. In the interval he worked at the G. & J. Tire Company for fifteen cents an hour and at Seymour at nine dollars a week. He is making now twenty cents 30 an hour. An examination of his wage record shows that in June, when he worked fairly steadily, he made $53.63. He stated to the commission he could make an average of $11.50 a week. By that, of course, he meant to convey, if he worked all the time. He made |53.63 in June, and lost four days. lu the month of July he had a period from the 9th to the 12th when he did not work at all, and he lost several days at other times and only made $47.66. In the month of August he was very irregular in his work and he made $47.32. In September he was more regular and made $49.61, and in October he made $51.11. That shows that when he does work he makes around fifty dollars — $53.00 — a month. He is a young, single man, age 22, and it has been so attractive to him that he has come back to the company three times and begged Mr. Mahoney for his job. Even after being discharged in con- nection with an irregularity in fares, Mr. Mahoney said he would give him another chance. I submit that man has no grievance against the com- pany. His conduct shows he has not. His conduct shows he wants this employment, and he is well satisfied with the wages, and if he needed more wages, he could work a little harder and more days. He misses a great many. J. SCHULER : He is a motorman and has worked for the company three months. His record here shows he was employed on the 6th day of September. Now, down until the 31st day of September he never missed a day. He had work every day on this extra list. He made $54.37 from the 6th of September to the 30th of that month. By the first em- ployment he had, of course, counting out the first six days of the month, he was earning at a rate in excess of $60.00 31 a month, from the beginning. In October he made |48.63, and missed a good deal of time, several days. Then he went on strike, and his earnings in November are ir- regular. He testified to the commission that he makes between flO.OO and |11.00 a week. We can see here that he makes more when he works regularly. Before he worked for the company, he made |11.50 in a tailor shop by work- ing extra hours. He used to work at the C. & O. Freight House, and made 17 cents an hour. Before that he worked on a farm at |25.00 a month. He testified he would go back to work after this hearing even if no increase in the wages was granted. That man's record for the month of September and October, the first full months he worked for the company, shows conclusively that the extra man does not work under a material hardship as to the amount of his wages. While I am on that subject, and for fear I will forget it later, there is here before the commission a record of every man that has worked as an extra man during the year. I, myself, was greatly surprised when I examined it to see how much money the extra men make if they work, if they report for duty. The work is there for them and the record will show that the man who reports for duty makes very good wages, considerably more than the min- imum they are asking here. These men are asking that they get a minimum of |1.50 a day, which is |45.00 a month. That record will show that the man who reports for duty while on the extra list makes more than $45.00 a month from the very beginning, and I hope your Honors will find time to run through a few pages and satisfy your- selves as to the truth of the statement. 32 H. C. Schmidt: He is a car service man, a conductor. He makes 21 cents an lionr. He has been a conductor nearly two years. He says, "I make |16.12 a week if I work seven days." He made a computation about his wages. He said, "If 1 work 28 days I get |64.48, and if I lay off two days"— which he thought was a fair amount — "I make $59.86." He said, '"I pay f24.00 a month for groceries, |5.00 for rent' $5.00 insurance and dues and I pay |12.00 a month on my furniture, $5.00 a month for clothing ; that is |51.00 a month." He showed by that he only had a balance of about $8.00 a month. His record shows very much to the contrary. His record shows that in June he made and drew $63.39, although he was off that month three days. For the month of July he made and drew $66.92, although in that month he was off two days. He figured that if he was off two days in the month his net earning would be $59.86, while in July he was off two days and his earnings were $66.92. Chaieman Duncan : He arrived at that by the week? Mr. Latta : I am calling attention to his actual earnings as compared with his actual expenditures to show he has more than $8.00 left at the end of the month for his incidental expenses. He earned during the month of August, $65.59, and in Sep- tember, $62.92, and in October he earned and drew $65.59. Commenting further on his testimony, as 1 have it abstracted here, "I have been called up by Mr. Mahoney six times, four times on account of the union. I joined September 2nd. Mr. Mahoney would not believe it when I told him I had not 33 joined. A union man treats a union man better than he does a non-union man. We don't treat scabs as well as we do union men. If my motorman was not a union man, he would be a scab. I don't think a non-union man is anything but a scab. By the union we are able to try all discharges before the commission. If the union is recognized they would be in a position to require all men to join the union. Before a man is discharged the matter would have to be investigated, and if they did not agree, arbitrate. I think the company should prove by the spotter that the man took the money in case he was accused of knocking down fares." That is the record of Schmidt as far as his wages are concerned. That illustrates his attitude to- wards this company and what reason is there for it? A man who has been with the company now not quite two years and he is having a regular income from his labor with this company of approximately 165.00 a month; more than that, if he works steadily, at almost the beginning, you might say, of his employment. P. M. PORTEE : He is a motorman, in the car service department, at 23 cents an hour. He is 28 years of age; married and has two children. He has worked this time for the company four years and he worked a year for the company once before. "I get 116.50 for seven days. I pay |8.75 rent. My grocery bill is |5.00 a week. I have had to work overtime sometimes. The reason was the man who was to relieve me, quit, and they had no extra man to take my run. I 34 always thought they did not pay wages enough. I joined the union October 29th. I do not know where I could make as much as I do." There is a man who has been with the company four years ; has a regular run and makes 23 cents an hour. He is entitled to take out his run. This record shows he has an earning capacity if he does take out his run, of more than $66.00 a month. In the month of June he only earned |45.59, because he did not work. He did not work at all until the 9th of June, and then he loafed several days thereafter. In July he made $62.08, and he lost four days that month,. In August he only made $53.07. He did not work at all from the 4th to the 11th, both inclusive, of August, and he lost time on other occasions also during that month. In September and October he made $63.63, and $64.79, respectively. Now he thinks he ought to have more pay, and yet he is working, under this evidence, about three-fourths of his time. Some months he loses a whole week at a time, and some months he loses eight and ten days at a time. He asks you gentlemen to give him a raise in pay when the company can get all the men it needs for the pay it does offer. He wants you to raise the pay for his benefit so he can make more money. He has within his own hands the means of making more money by work- ing more steadily. W. B. Akard: He is in the car service department as a motorman; he makes 21 cents an hour; he has a wife and four children. His grocery bill is $5.00 to $6.00 a week. Akard said he had been in the merchants business but was burned out, and lost practically everything he had. He is here work- ing for this company saving to get back in business again. 35 He said lie is saving on an average, and has saved on an average through the extra list, and all, an average of |100 a year. In June he made |57.96; In July, |65.12; in August, 165.60; in September, |63.36; in October, |64.87. He works pretty regularly. He loses on an average about two or three days a month, but for the most part he works pretty regularly, and he is getting along all right. By the way, in the testimony of Mr. Akard, there is a full account of his wages during the time he was working through the extra list. He had it by the week, gave all the time covering the period of a couple of years, and it shows he made very good money while working on the extra list. In fact, he has kept up his average of savings at the rate of |100 a year, and he has quite a good sized family. G. D. Miller: He has a wife and one child. It took him four months to get through the extra list. He worked most of the time. He lives twenty-two squares from the barn, in a rooming house, paying |4.50 a week rent ; |4.50 a week for groceries. "I formerly worked at Beech Grove for |2.00 a day and at the Panhandle Shops for |1.70, and $1.75 a day, and worked at Kokomo for the L. E. & W. at 17 cents. I worked at Kokomo in a butcher shop at |15.00 a week for a short time, and then got this place." "Good places," he said, "at |15.00 a week are hard to get." He said that when asked why he did not get somehting better if he did not like this. He made $55.11 in June; in July dropping back to $43.72, because he did not work from the 10th to the 17th 36 of July, and lost two days further on in tliat month. In August he came up again and made |59.88. He worked that month all except one day. In September he made 153.28. In October he made |50.45, losing two or three days, and having two days when he worked only 48 minutes; but he made over |50.00. There is a lot of this. We lay before your Honors the wage earnings of every man who testified here on behalf of this committee. I will not read more, but I submit that I have read enough to show that in most cases they have not a real grievance so far as their wages are concerned, and that those men who complain the very loudest, are the ones that work the least. All that is further illustrated by the fact that more than forty men came in here who have been with this company for years, old and steady men, that have worked for this company many years, and each and every one of them said they were making good wages, making more than they could elsewhere; that they were well satisfied, and perfectly willing to go on. Chairman Duncan: Have you Mr. White's wage? Mr. Latta: Yes. I have his wage . He makes a very good wage. He has been with the company, of course, for quite a while. I have Mr. Brown's here also. He made 179.92 in June; |84.37 in July; |84.57 in August; |63.94 in September; |78.59 in October. Those are the earnings of Mr. Brown. Mr.. Payne: He works steadily? Mr. Latta : Yes. In June he laid off one day. In July he worked every day, and in August he worked every day. In September he laid off two days, and in October one day ; so he worked pretty steadily, but he makes over |80.00 a month. Now, I want to call your Honors' attention to the com- 37 pilations of the time and wages of the regular motormen and conductors introduced in evidence here in connection with the large rolls showing their precise time and wages. I had these read at the time by Mr. Foley and your Honors remember what they sTiowed; but I have had a computa- tion made from these figures, and I wish to read it : "CONDUCTORS AND MOTORMEN, SHOWING REG- ULAR MEN WORKING AT THE FOUR BARNS DURING THE MONTH OF JANUARY, 1913. "Number of men on Pay Rolls 468 Time scheduled on Regular Runs. . 153,122 hrs. 32 min. Time actually worked 126,578 hrs. 08 min. Loss i26,544 hrs. 24 min. Average loss per man 56 hrs. 43 min. Pay roll called for by full regular runs 134,014.86 Pay roll actually earned and paid 28,087.14 Loss 5,927.72 Average loss per man 12.67 Avel'age earnings called for by schedule 72.68 per man Average actual earnings 60.01 per man Chairman Duncan : If the regular men work the full schedule time, there would be no work for the extra men? Mr. Latta : No, I don't so understand it. I do not know whether there would, but, of course, the extra men take the place of the regular men when they lay off. Whether the regular runs take up all the runs or not, I do not know. Mr. Mahoney: We have 61 unassigned runs the extra men work ; 61 crews. 38 Mr. Latta : These would have to be run by extra men anyway. The same computation for the month of June, the month of the increase, is as follows : SHOWING REGULAR MEN WORKING AT ALL FOUR BARNS DURING THE MONTH OF JUNE, 1913, CONDUCTORS AND MOTORMEN. Regular men on pay roll 557 Time scheduled on regular runs 164,001 hrs. 05 min. Time actually worked 138,020 hrs. 32 min. Loss 25,980 hrs. 33 min. Average loss per man 46 hrs. 39 min. Pay roll called for by full regular runs 140,136.70 Pay roll actually earned and paid 34,157.63 Loss 5,979.07 Average loss per man 10.73 Average earnings called for by schedule (per man) 72.05 Average actual earnings per man . . . 61.32 I want to call your Honor's attention to the fact that the increase of one cent an hour, which took effect at that time, produced a difference in the actual wages of these men of $1.30 a month. In the month of January they made $60.01 a month on an average. In the month of June Ihej made $61.32 on an average. Chairman Duncan: You mean that was their own fault? Mr. Latta: I mean they did not work. The fact that the company paid them a cent more on the hour only re- 39 suited in an actual net increase in the earnings of the men of 11.30 a month. Mr. Clark : They laid off more? Mr. Latta : They laid off more. There was less work- ing. Mr. McClure: Do you have the computation there showing the actual amount of increase in the aggregate of the money paid by the company for that service? Mr. Latta: I have not, but I have the estimated in- crease at one cent an hour of the present pay roll, |22,810 dollars. Chairman Duncan: The runs average about eleven and a half hours. A ten hours' run would increase his wages ten cents a day? Mr. Latta: That would be three dollars 3 month, ap- proximately. The point I am making in connection with this is that this company gave the man voluntarily in June an increase of one cent an hour, which, upon the figures produced here, cost the company |22,000 to |23,000, but that its effect was only to produce a net increase in the actual earnings of the regular men of |1.30 a month. Mr, Payne: If they had worked regularly it would only have amounted to |3.00. Mr. Latta: Very well, but the point is this: These gentlemen are asking you to raise the wages again at the end of six months, practically so — seven months — from the time that that increase was voluntarily granted by this company. I am saying that the emergency, the cause, for raising these wages, does not, in fact, exist, as is shown by the manner of the men in taking advantage of the raise they got before. In other words, if these men were in hard lines, if they were not making a living wage, if they were not making such a good wage they could 40 indulge themselves in the loss of two-thirds of the in- crease they then got th^ would have greedily seized that 13.00 a month and availed themselves of it. Their actual loss per man for the month of January for failure to work — regular men — their actual loss per man was $12.67. Chairman Duncan: You mean the average? Mr. Latta: I am speaking of the average. Chairman Duncan: That is not very significant to me, that average loss. You take eight hundred men and fifty indifferent men will make the average low. Mr. Latta : Your Honor, there must be a great many men who lay off to produce a result of that kind. You take 180.00 a month — say the men make fSO.OO a month — this shows their average is $72.00. Chairman Duncan : That would be about one-sixth of their time lost. Mr. Latta : That is $12.00 out of $72.00. Chairman Duncan : About one-sixth of their time. Mr. Latta : Yes, one-sixth of their time they do not work. The point is this, your Honor, there must be an ability upon the part of these men to live according to their own desires for less than the amount of wages they are making so the^^ indulge themselves in the privilege of laying off to some extent. Chairman Duncan : My idea of that would be — do you not think it is absolutely essential for them to lay off? Mr. Latta : Yes, I do. But one-sixth of your time — is there any one of us that indulges to this extent; — one- sixth of his time when he does not work at all? Chairman Duncan: I lose nearly every Sunday; that is about one-seventh of it. Mr. Latta : If it be true, that the men were working all except Sunday, and they needed the money, would not the 41 increase of a cent an hour voluntarily granted by this company in June, produce a better result to them than it did? It most certainly would. The claim has been made here, your Honors, that the wages of these men have not been advanced in proportion to the earnings of the company, and they found that claim upon the testimony of Mr. White, who gave us a very elaborate and detailed account of the money he had collected, the number of fares he had collected and the amount of his wages. As a result of that, however, we found that in 1905 the wages of this witness amounted to .0021 for each passenger he carried, and that his wages had continuously increased every year until, in 1913, his wages were .0029 on every passenger he carried, thereby demonstrating that in spite of the fact as he claimed that the cars were larger and the volume of the traffic had in- creased, and that each conductor was bringing into this company more money than he formerly did, the wages of the conductors themselves (and, of course, the motormen, have advanced proportionately), have increased faster than the productivity of the cars and the productivity of their own labor as operators of the cars. We have also put forward what is to me the true test of fairness in in- creasing wages; a comparative statement of the revenue per car mile, and a comparative statement of the platform expense per car mile. It is all right to indulge in highflown theories about the proportion of the revenues of this com- pany, or any particular business, labor should have. There is no way of determining. If we undertake to do that, we have no measure at all to go by. No. man knows how much a man is worth as set over against a sum of money as capital invested. That is not the method upon which business is conducted. The owner of the business takes the risk of the business and takes the risk of loss in the 42 business, and he must pay the wages that are necessary to carry on the business even to the point of a failure as far as he himself is concerned. But if we undertake it at all, it is fair to say that there is one basis only upon which we can compare the advance in wages with the advance in prosperity of the business itself. Only one test which can be applied to the street railway business. It must be by comparing the earnings and platform expense per car mile. You send a man out to run a car a mile, and the man must run it. If you earn a million dollars within a year by running so many miles, and two million the next year by running twice as many, you have to have the men to man those cars, to run those miles. Labor and capital come together in the street railway business in operating one car one mile, and in producing the revenue, whatever it is, which may result from operating that car that mile. This is where labor and capital come together in this par- ticular business. Now this company — ^your Honors have these figures before you — this company from the year 1906, including nine months of 1913 has presented a statement of its earnings per car mile showing the following rate of increase. In 1906 the increase was 6.340 per cent, in earn- ings. In 1906 the increase in wages of motormen and con- ductors — the platform expense per car mile was 5.724 per cent. In that year the company gained a little over the men in increase in earnings. In 1907 the increase in earnings per car mile was 2.625 per cent. In the same year the increase of the men in platform expense was 3.150 per cent. The men went ahead of the company in that year. In 1908 the increase to the company was 0.438 of one per cent, in increased earnings per car mile, and in the sam' year there was an increase in the earnings of the men per car mile of 1,289 of one per cent. In 1909 the company made an increase in its earnings per car mile of 2.910 per 43 cent. The same year the men increased the platform ex- pense 2.435 per cent. The company made a very slight gain over the men that year. In 1910 the company in- creased in its car earnings 2.015 of one per cent., while the men increased 1.505 of one per cent. The company gained a little that year over the men. In 1911 the company made a very slight increase, 0.003 of one per cent. The men, however, made a very large increase, 3.287 of one per cent. In 1912 the company made a very slight increase, 0.003 of one per cent., while the men went ahead 1.705 per cent. In 1913, the first nine months, the company made a gain of 1.381 per cent., while the men made a gain of 2.127 per cent. Now, I have that in a chart graphically, showing here by solid lines the percentage of increase in car earnings per car mile and by dotted lines the percentage of increase in platform expense per car mile, showing, if it can be truth- fully said that there is a basis for comparing the advance- ment which should be made by labor with the advance- ment which should be made by capital, that these men have increased faster than the company has increased through- out this period, and for the past two and three-fourths years they have increased very largely over the company. In 1911 and 1912 we made practically no increase at all. 44 i Sohd hn 'J denote . en anrj r percent, mductors ^f increost M/- Car. /if/ jn noaes 1 «r 1 1 1 4 3 i 2 . . - -- , 1 ,*- ,Q 1 1 ■ 1 r! \ ,Xr r.i' j9oL no 7 /joa /9o^ /$/o i9if » T}< sc 00 ai be s^ ®*i So >> EM cq CO cq cq o oq J5 CC O cq <^ cq tq — I ;:^ cq oi cq ^ ?q tH --K CO tH QO ^ (?q cq rH cq CO cq cq cq CO cq CO cq 00 cq cq o cq d d c;* cj cj fa o-^^S.^ 0) u o o 10 >0 d d o o Q CO ^ cq S O bC d cq CO cq CO cq CO cq CO cq 10 cq cq cq cq cq cq CO cq d cq « o 2S ' IS in moo CO cq .S cS Ti cj 03 d o o ft (D 0) O) O) d d d d 0000 d d o c ir3 10 w a o o c o cj 10 U5 i£5 iO iO »0 W HO 47 I call your attention to the fact that this shows that the initial rate of wage in Cincinnati, even as a result of arbitration, and in Dayton and Springfield, Ohio, is twen- ty- cents. The initial rate of wage at Columbus, Ohio, is 20^ cents. The initial rate at Baltimore is nineteen and at Washington it is 21i/^. At Kansas City it is 21 cents, and at some larger cities, such as Chicago, it is 23. In Saint Louis it is 23. In Louisville it is 21. Nashville, how- ever, it is 18. That, by comparison, would seem to indi- cate that our initial rate is not out of proportion to the initial rate in other cities, and the subsequent rate for the men who have been in the service longer is fairly well proportionate to the rates in other cities. In Louisville they do not get 23 cents, without reference to the length of employment. In Cincinnati, when our men are earn- ing 25 cents, their men are earning 24. Even in the seven Ih and eighth year under the late arbitration in Cincinnati, they are earning 24 cents, while we pay our men 25 cents in the sixth year. They reach 25 cents at the ninth year, by the arbitration in Cincinnati. In Springfield, Ohio, they reach 25 cents one year before we reach it here, and at Dayton they seem to have the same rate, while in Co- lumbus they start at 201/2 cents and 241/2 cents is the highest they reach. In Washington they start at 2II/2 cents, but never get above 2314 cents. In Baltimore they start at 19, and 22 cents is the highest they ever reach. So that this chart as a whole would indicate, as it seems to me, not only that our initial rate is a decent rate, the kind of rate that will draw to us the proper sort of men, and plenty of them, but it is a rate which in other cities seems to produce a proper kind of labor for the operation of the cars, and it takes a much larger city than Indianapolis to stand a greater initial rate than we have here. 48 Also, I want to call your Honors' attention to the tes- timony of Mr. Euliss, who was a witness here for this committee and who said that about the time the strike be- came imminent, just before the strike was called, he went to Mr. Mahoney's otQ.ce. He went on his own responsibil- ity, it is true. He did not represent anybody ; he did not represent these men; but his thought in that connection is worth considering because he has had experience here in this city running through a number of years, and his suggestion to Mr. Mahoney upon that occasion is of some value, it seems to me, to this Commission. He suggested an initial rate of 20 cents. He did not purport at that time to say that the initial wage should be raised. His idea was to add more compensation in later years. He said that men who had been employed five or six or seven years should get 27 cents; a man who had served over seven years should get 28 cents. But the initial rate should remain at 20 cents, even according to the sugges- tion of Mr. Euliss. Passing from that subject then, to the comparison of these wages with the cost of living, I want to say that I have conceded from the very beginning that I consider this a fair matter to be taken into consideration. It en- ters into the question of the real wage as distinguished from the nominal wage, which is a recognized distinction taken into consideration by all economists. It is what a wage will buy, and that is the real wage. As a preface to that, I wisli to call your attention to the table which has been introduced in evidence, and is without question true ; of the various increases in wage which have been made by this company voluntarily to its men from time to time, beginning in the year 1905 and extending up to the present time. In the year 1905 the initial wage was 16 cents, and the highest wage was 18 cents. In December of 1905, 49 which, of course, projected it into the year 1906, the initial wage was made 17 cents, and the highest wage was 19 cents. In 1907 the initial wage was made 18 cents, and the highest wage was 20 cents, and so it has progressed year after year to the present time, when in June of this year, the initial rate was made 20 cents, and the highest wage at five years and over was made 25 cents. Now, it is in evidence here that the board of arbitration sitting in the railroad controversy in the east which considered the wages of all the railroad men north of the Ohio River and east of the Mississippi River, and considered well and carefully the question of the increased cost of living, de- cided that the increased cost of living was approximately seven per cent, in the past five years. I introduced also printed and published tables from the Indianapolis papers from which a computation showed that the increased cost in prices figured laterally over all the articles in that five years amounted to 6i/^ per cent. Now, in my judgment the committee did not do much to enlighten your Honors upon this subject. They intro- ducedj as I remember, some lady who had a stand on the market, whose principal effort seemed to be to try to show that there is a combination between the market stand- holders; and they introduced also some scattered testi- mony during the course of their evidence to the effect that things cost more than formerly; but we made an attempt to bring to this Commission the figures, to show wherein the cost of living had increased ; in what particular and to what extent. I think we established with considerable ac- curacy the fact that rents have not increased. This item constitutes in all probability one-fourth to one-fifth of the cost of living. We showed that the cost of clothing has not increased. We showed that the cost of shoes has not increased, if shoes are carefully bought and properly 50 bought for service. We showed that on the whole, tlie cost of groceries has not increased. Some articles have increased, others have decreased, but on the whole, groc- eries are not much higher now than previously. One wit- ness said, I believe, they might be as much as five per cent, higher, but as I remember, most of the witnesses said the cost of groceries was practically the same, taken as a whole. We showed the great increase has been in the choice cuts, or what is very properly denominated the fashionable cuts, of meats. That testimony was very illuminating. For instance, one witness testified as to lamb chops. You kill a lamb and there are six chops in either side of the lamb. Every man who desires to buy lamb, wants lamb chops. The balance of the lamb, for the most part, goes begging, and it is the same way with other cuts of meat of various kinds. These other cuts are equally as nourishing and equally as palatable, and just as desirable, except they are not quite as fashionable. And they have not increased in price to any such extent. Therefore, I believe it seems fair to say that the finding of the eastern board of arbitration is not far wrong. That investigation spread over all the various articles compris- ing the total cost of living. The average increase will not exceed six or seven per cent, or in that neighborhood. The only thing to the contrary that has been shown here that pretends to amount to anytliing is the tabluation by the Department of Labor at Washington. I wish to call your Honors' attention to the fact that that tabulation is not reliable. You can make most anything out of a tabulation If you proceed as the department did in that case. For instance, their figures on the cost of meat, which is illus- trative and the most important item, — they gave certain percentages on the cost of meat; it appeared, however, that the quotations were furnished by six Indianapolis 51 meat dealers out of a total of more than eight hundred. They furnished quotations like this, "Sirloin steak, former- ly 20 cents, now 28 cents a pound." We have shown be- yond any question that it is not necessary in Indianapolis to pay 28 cents a pound for sirloin steak. "Round steak, 20 to 25 cents, and rib roast 17 to 20 cents a pound increase. ' The others are in like proportion. Of course, I presume there are places in Indianapolis where a man might pay 28 cents a pound for sirloin steak, but reputable dealers have been introduced here, men who have large places of business located in prominent parts of the City of Indi- anapolis, who have been in business for years, and who must please their customers. They could not continue in business unless they furnished the right kind of meat and satisfied their customers. They tell you it is not neces- sary to pay such prices, and if you are willing to take the less fashionable cuts, it is perfectly feasible nowadays to get good meat at a reasonable price. If it be true that the increased cost of living, taking into consideration all the different articles, will not aver- age more than seven or eight or ten per cent., then it is established here that this company has been fair with its employes on the subject of wages, because in that same length of time it has increased the initial wage eleven per cent., and it has increased the wage of those men who have remained with the company year after year, and are veterans in its service 20 per cent. This company has kept pace with the increase in the cost of living; more than kept pace. Chairman Duncan: Does not that argument assume that the wage was a proper one in 1905? Mr. Latta: It does assume it was a proper wage in 1905, and does not the evidence in this case satisfy your Honor it was a proper wage in 1905? For twenty years 52 there has been no friction between this company and its men over the question of wage. For more than twenty years there has never been a murmur from the men that they were not paid a proper wage. Eight here in Indi- anapolis where there are thousands of employers and where there are thousands of men being employed in all the vaious lines of endeavor, we have competed sucess- fully and have satisfied our men with our rate of wage. We are dealing now with a question that involves in its initial stage common labor, and at its further stages labor which does not require any particular skill, at least no especial apprenticeship. We have shown that year after year and year after year these men have gone on apparent- ly satisfied with their wages, and no friction has developed between the company and its men. Could there be any stronger evidence that the wage of 1905 was a proper wage? If a wage is satisfactory, is it not a proper wage? Is there any other test by which to determine whether a wage is proper? The evidence shows that in 1892 there was a strike which was an uncalled for and and unjustifi- able strike; which broke up the union; known as the "Nancy Hank" strike. From that date until 1913 these men have been going along without any trouble at all, without any complaints of their wage, and without any dissatisfaction, I believe, your Honor, I have a perfect right to assume that the wage in 1905 was a proper wage, from that evidence. Now, I wish to spend a short time, and a short time only, on the subject of captalization. These gentlemen have complained about the evidence on the subject of cap- italization. I say they have no grounds for complaint. If we were attempting to reduce these wages, it would be in- cumbent then upon us to show all the facts essential to make a case for the reduction of wages ; and if in connec- 53 tion with an attempt to reduce the wages, we were making an attempt to show here we could not pay anything to the men who have their money invested in this property, it might very well be said we should show with particularity, to this Commission, the amount of money invested, or the amount of money now involved in this property. But that is not the contention here. The burden is upon them to show, if they desire to make any point in this connec- tion, that this property is over-capitalized — and they have not shown it, and for the very good reason that they could not show it. So they have no grounds for complaint, your Honors, that we have left this case without a physical val- uation of this property, which would probably cost many thousands of dollars, and involve an examination running over several months. You cannot make a physical valua- tion of this property in a moment. It is a great, com- plex affair, and it takes special knowledge and skill to make a physical valuation. The evidence generally shows this: That in the year 1899, after it had emerged in a sort of a way from the horse car day — it had been ten years since the time the first electrical street car was operated in Indianapolis, — in the year 1899, there were various franchises. In West Indianapolis; in Haughville; in Irv- ington and in various places, separate franchises had been granted to the street railway companies in Indianapolis . The companies owned certain gravel roads extending into Indianapolis, one of which was North Illinois, and the other Central Avenue; that a franchise had been granted to the City Railway Company to come down New Jersey Street into the very heart of Indianapolis, and compete with the then existing company. All Indianapolis was in a turmoil. Money would not come into Indianapolis to be invested to improve the property. There had been a sort of a half-hearted at- 54 tempt to convert the property from a horse car into an electric system. The power house was utterly inadequate. The rails which had been used for horse cars were insuf- ficient. The little old cars we had at that time would seem ridiculous to us now. A general settlement was then en- tered into, as your Honors know judicially from the legis- lation that was enacted at that time by the General As- sembly, for in the year 1899 all Indianapolis and all per- sons interested entered into that settlement, and an En- abling Act was passed by the General Assembly providing for the collection of all the different franchises and for sur- rendering them to the City of Indianapolis. Many were perpetual. Then there was a consolidation of all these different companies, after a new franchise had been granted by the City of Indianapolis, providing for a re- duced fare, and the payment of Thirty Thousand Dollars a year into the treasury of the city, all in consideration of a general settlement of the situation at that time. Money had to be expended to purchase these franchises. Money had to be expended to rebuild this property, which was was then in a ramshackle condition on account of the con- troversy that had been raging here for the ten years since horse cars had been partially done away with, and the first electrical car run in Indianapolis. The Indianapolis Street Railway Company then came into existence, and I have introduced the ordinances of the City of Indianapolis, showing that the City of In- dianapolis Avas a party to that settlement; that not only was a law passed through the General Assembly to authorize it, but ordinances were passed by the com- mon council providing for the surrender of all the franchises to the city, and for a franchise of limited term to be taken; for the general reconstruction of the lines ; and for the expenditure of a millon dollars at least, 55 and as much more as was necessary. Out of and as a re- sult of that settlement came into existence this property, which has been developed into one of the finest street rail- way properties in the United States. I notice that whenever Indianapolis is written up and its manifold advantages are spread before the people, one thing of importance is the street railway property in In- dianapolis; it is one of the things we are most proud of. Men of this city Avho have traveled to the remotest parts of the earth, come back and say there is no finer or more efficient street railway system anywhere than we have here. All this is the result of that settlement, and of the Indianapolis Street Railway's advent into the affairs of Indianapolis, in 1899, or soon thereafter. It is shown with particularity how all that was done; how the bonds and stocks were issued; what they brought; what was accomplished; and will it be said now that in a controversy like this, where the street railway company is not attempting to reduce these fares, that it is a proper subject for inquiry whether or not these things should have been done, or that the men who have put their money and abilities into this property can have their investment called in question without an opportunity to be heard. And have no day in court? I think hardly. Then again, in 1905 there was a man lived in this city who had almost a prophetic vision. He not only had the ability to look forward and conceive a grand enterprise. He had the strength of character to put it into execution ; he had the ability to persuade men to back it. He had the tremendous energy that was necessary to create the In- dianapolis Traction & Terminal Company, and to bring to Indianapolis the greatest street railway and interurban terminal in the world then and today as well. Your Honors judicially know that the Legislature of 56 Indiana has an enabling act to permit that to be done. I have introduced the ordinances here to show the City of Indianapolis also passed laws to permit it to be done. This evidence shows that during that period enormous holdings of real estate were acquired here preparatory to its being done, and right in the heart of the City of Indianapolis al- most a complete square was acquired, which I undertake to say today is worth all the bonds and stocks put together of the Indianapolis Traction & Terminal Company. That man conceived the idea that all the interurban roads centering in Indianapolis should be brought into one terminal. In order to bring about such a result great tact, great ability, great energy, was necessary to be em- ployed. Will it be said, can it be justly said, that even if he secured stocks or bonds, or either, or both, although there is no evidence that he did, as a result of his energy and enterprise upon that occasion, that that is watered? It has just as much value, gentlemen, as though he had paid money for every dollar that he got. We have introduced evidence to show from the balance sheets of that company for the past five years that it has the assets to correspond with its bonds and stocks, and not only that, but it has a surplus. We have introduced evidence to show^ that from 1899 w^hen that tremendous scheme was conceived and brought into execution, until the present day Indianapolis has experienced a growth that it had never experienced before Practically every building of importance in Indianapolis in the downtown district has been constructed in that time. The depart- ment stores have grown to three times their former size. The Indiana National Bank has had a great prosperity. I have used it as an example. xA.ccording to the evidence. 57 over and above its dividends, it has multiplied its capital surplus four times in that period. Real estate has increased two hundred per cent., and yet these gentlemen say, "How much money did you put into the Indianapolis Traction and Terminal Company in 1905?" Why, do you realize, gentlemen, that in 1912 there came into the Traction and Terminal Station as a result of that conception of this man and of his energy and ability in putting it forth 6,431,714 passengers; that there were operated into the Traction and Terminal Sta- tion 249,017 passenger cars, and that there approached and discharged their packages and freight at the Ter- minal Express Station 23,896 cars during the same period, pouring their golden wealth into the city of Indianapolis? The Indianapolis Traction and Terminal Company has a right to participate in that prosperity, and it has a right to have its stockholders paid dividends accordingly. Can it be justly said that all the citizens of Indianapolis may enjoy the unearned increment that comes from such an enterprise, and that the man who created it cannot enjoy it and is not entitled to it? Hardly. Mr. Justice Brewer, of the Supreme Court of the United States, in considering a tax question, has this to say of the value of property used in the public service. I am reading from the case of Adams Express Company v. Ohio State Auditor, 166 United States 185, 41 Law Edition 965, on 976 : "Now, the taxes imposed upon express com- panies by the statutes of the three States of Ohio, Indiana and Kentucky are certainly not in terms 'privilege taxes.' They purport to be upon the property of the companies. They are therefore not in form, at least, subject to any of the denuncia- tions against privilege taxes which have so often come from the court. The statutes grant no privi- 58 lege of doing an express business, charge nothing of doing such a business and contemplate only the assessment and levy of taxes upon the property of the express companies situated within the respec- tive States. And the only really substantial ques- tion is whether, properly understood and adminis- tered, they subject to the taxing power of the State property not within its territorial limits. The burden of the contention of the express companies is that they have wdthin the limits of the State cer- tain tangible property, such as horses, wagons, etc. ; that that tangible property is their only prop- erty within the state; that it must be valued as other like property, and upon such valuation alone can taxes be assessed and levied against them. But this contention practically ignores the exist- ence of intangible property, or at least denies its liability for taxation. In the complex civilization of today a large portion of the wealth of a com- munity consists in intangible property, and there is nothing in the nature of things or in the limita- tions of the federal constitution which restrains a State from taxing at its real value such intangible property. Take the simplest illustration: B, a solvent man, purchases from A certain property, and gives to A his promise to pay, say |100,000 therefor. Such promise may or may not be evi- denced by a note or other Avritten instrument. The property conveyed to B may or may not be of the value of 1100,000. If there* be nothing in the way of fraud or misrepresentation to invalidate that transaction, there exists a legal promise on the part of B to pay to A |100,000. That promise is a part of A's property. It is something of value, something on which he will receive cash, and which he can sell in the markets of the community for cash. It is as certainly property, and property of value, as if it were a building or a steamboat, and is as justly subject to taxation. It matters not in what this intangible property consists — whether privileges, corporate franchises, contracts or obli- gations. It is enough that it is property which, 59 though intangible, exists, which has value, pro- duces income and passes current in the markets of the world. To ignore this intangible property, or to hold that it is not subject to taxation at its accepted value, is to eliminate from the reach of the taxing power a large portion of the wealth of the country. Now, whenever separate articles of tangible property are joined together, not simply by a unity of ownership, but in a unity of use, there is not infrequently developed a property, intangi- ble though it may be, which in value exceeds the aggregate of the value of the separate pieces of tangible property. Upon what theory of substan- tial right can it be adjudged that the value of this intangible property must be excluded from the tax lists, and the only property placed thereon the separate pieces of tangible property? Mr. Latta : That is, here is certain iron and bricks and mortar used in the construction of the train shed of the terminal station. That iron and brick and mortar may not be worth very much, it may not have cost much, but into that iron and brick and mortar, when it is molded into the form of the train shed of the terminal station there comes a vast volume of traffic. The contracts which bring that traffic into the terminal station are property. The use to which those pieces of iron and brick and mor- tar is put produce an income, valuable rights are acquired, it becomes an operating whole. There may be in tangible property in that creation as a whole, but it is property, nevertheless; it is producing property. It will pass for property in the markets of the world; it is taxable prop- erty; it is property that is entitled to be paid, by divi- dends or otherwise, for its use in carrying on the public business. I want to read again from the Supreme Court Reports of the United States in the case of the Cleveland, Cincin- 60 nati, Chicago & St. Louis Railroad Company v. Victor M. Backus, 38 Law Edition, IO4I, I am reading from 1046. This arose in our own state: "The rule of property taxation is that the property is the basis of taxation. It does not mean a tax upon the earnings which the prop- erty makes, nor for the privilege of using the property, but rests solely upon the value. But the value of property results from the use to which it is put and varies with the profitableness of that use, present and prospective, actual and antici- pated. There is no pecuniary value outside of that which results from such use. The amount and profitable character of such use determines the value, and if property is taxed at its actual cash value it is taxed upon something which is created by the uses to which it is put. In the na- ture of things it is practically impossible — at least in respect to railroad property — to divide its value, and determine how much is caused by one use to which it is put and how much by an- other. Take the case before us; it is impossible to disintegrate the value of that portion of the road within Indiana and determine how much of that value springs from its use in doing inter- state business, and how much from its use in do- ing business wholly within the state An attempt to do so would be entering upon a mere field of uncertainty and speculation. And because of this fact it is something which an assessing board is not required to attempt. Take for illustration, property whose sole use is for purposes of inter- state commerce, such as a bridge over the Ohio between the states of Kentucky and Ohio. From that springs its entire value. Can it be that it is on that account entirely relieved from the burden of state taxaton? Will it be said that the taxa- tion must be based simply on the cost, when never was it held that the cost of a thing is the test of its value? Suppose there be two bridges over the Ohio, the cost of the construction of each being 61 the same, one between Cincinnati and Newport, and another twenty miles below and where there is nothing but a small village on either shore. The value of the one will manifestly be greater than that of the other, and that excess of value will spring solely from the larger use of the one than of the other." Chairman Duncan : Has not there been, Mr. Latta, a marked modification of that principle? Mr. Latta: I do not believe so, your Honor. Chairman Duncan : They began with Smith v. Ames, 169, and ended up with the Hughes Minnesota case that modifies that substantially. Mr. Latta: I am not contending, your Honor — Chairman Duncan : Suppose we were valueing this property to fix a rate? Mr. Latta: I am not contending the use is the only basis. Chairman Duncan : In fixing the rate, what about your franchise? Mr. Latta: It would be proper to consider the fran- chise. Chairman Duncan: Not a cent except whar was paid for it. Mr. Latta: In this case, your Honor, the franchise is paid for. Chairman Duncan: What was actually paid would be the value for rate making purposes. In determining the wage, if important at all, and it ought to l>e, would it have a different value for the purpose of fixing a wage than in fixing the rate? Mr. Latta: Yes sir. If your Honor will let me come to that later, I will discuss it. But I think it is perfectly 62 apparent that for fixing a wage the principles are entirely different than those involved in fixing a rate. Chairman Duncan: Don't let me confuse you. Mr. Latta: I had another United States case there I wanted to read. I think, at least as far as my investiga- tion has led me to determine, there is no case where the question of values has been discussd by any court in con- nection with the fixing of a wage, and we have to argue by analysis, of course, on this suibject. Chairman Duncan: The value for fixing a rate, we are beginning to get reasonably familiar with that law. Mr. Latta: I understand that very well, and when I made the answer I did to your Honor I had in the back part of my mind the remembrance that this is a franchise that is paid for. I may, perhaps, have said no to your Honor's question when my answer was too broad, but in this particular case I think my answer is correct, that the franchise in this case must be considered even in fix- ing a rate. Mr. Clark : There was a stipulated amount to be paid, so much annually, until the full amount is paid. Mr. Latta: There is a rate discussion — these cases I have just read are tax cases — Fort Smith Light & Trac- tion Company v. The City of Fort Smith, 202 Federal Re- porter 581. The part to which I would call attention I will simply insert bodily in my argument without reading it, but it is a general discussion of what may be taken in- to consideration in fixing a rate, and perhaps no special gjood would come to the commission from commenting on it at length at this time. "In the case of San Diego Water Co. v. San Diego, 118 Cal. 556, 50 Pac. 633, 38 L. R. A. 460, 62 Am. St. Rep. 261, the Supreme Court of Cal- 63 ifornia had occasion again to pass upon the ques- tion of the duty of a governing body of a munic- ipality in fixing water rates. Referring to the sec- tion of the state constitution ahove mentioned, the court said: " 'The meaning of the section is that the govern- ing body of the municipality upon a fair investi- gation, and with the exercise of judgment and dis- cretion, shall fix reasonable rates and allow just compensation. If they attempt to act arbitrarily, without investigation, or without the exercise of judgment and discretion, or if they fix rates so palpably unreasonable and unjust as to amount to arbitrary action, they violate their duty, and go beyond the powers conferred upon them.' "In the case of Arkadelphia Electric Light Go. v. Arkadelphia, 99 Ark. 178, 137 S. W. 1093, it was held that: " 'The rates having been fixed by the city council, which is given authority to investigate and de- termine reasonable rates, the presumption is that they are reasonable, and the burden of proof is upon the company to show aflSrmatively that they are not.' "This is not a conclusive presumption, however, The council might so conduct its investigation, or might ignore or disregard essential facts to such an extent, as to overcome the presumption of the correctness of its decision. San Diego Water Go. V. San Diego, 118 Cal. 576, 50 Pac. 633, 38 L. R. A. 460, 62 Am. St. Rep. 261. What then must the council consider? "In the case of Smyth v. Ames, 169 U. S. 546, 18 Sup. Ct. 434, 42 L. Ed. 819, the Supreme Ck)urt of the United States said: "We hold, however, that the basis of all cal- culations as to the reasonableness of rates to be charged by a corporation maintaining a highway under legislative sanction must be the fair value of the property being used by it for the conven- ience of the public. And, in order to ascertain that value, the original cost of construction, the 64 amount expended in permanent improvements, the amount and market value of its bonds and stock, the present as compared with the original cost of construction, the probable earning capacity of the property under particular rates prescribed by statute, and the sum required to meet operat- ing expenses, are all matters for consideration, and are to be given such weight as may be just and right in each case. We do not say that there may not be other matters to be regarded in es- timating the value of the property. What the company is entitled to ask is a fair return upon the value of that which it employs for the public convenience. On the other hand, what the public is entitled to demand is that no more be exacted from it for the use of the public highway than the services rendered by it are reasonably worth.' "In the case of San Diego Land Co. v. National City, 174 U. S. 757 19 Sup. Ct. 811, 43 L. Ed. 1154, the same court said: " 'The contention of the appellant in the present case is that in ascertaining what are just rates the court should take into consideration the cost of its plant, the cost per annum of operating the plant including interest paid on money borrowed, and reasonably necessary to be used in construct- ing the same, the annual depreciation of the plant from natural causes resulting from its use, and a fair profit to the company over and above such charges for the services in supplying the water to consumers, either by way of interest on the money it has expended for the public use, or upon some other fair and equitable basis Undoubtedly all these matters ought to be taken into consid- eration, and such weight be given them when rates are being fixed as under all the circumstances will be just to the company and the public. The basis of calculation suggested by the appellant is, how- ever, defective in not requiring the real value of the property and the fair value in themselves of the services rendered to be taken into considera- tion. What the company is entitled to demand, 65 in order that it may have just compensation, is a fair return upon the reasonable valuie of the property at the time it is being used for the pub- lic. The property may have cost more than it ought to have cost and its outstanding bonds for money Iwrrowed and which went into the plant may be in excess of the real value of the property. So that it cannot be said that the amount of such bonds should in every case control the question of rates, although it may be an element in the in- quiry as to what is, all the circumstances consid- ered, just both to the company and the public' "In the case of Willcox v. Consolidated Gas Co.. 212 IT. S. 41 29 Sup. Ct. 195, 53 L. Ed. 382, 15 Ann. Cas. 1034, the court said: " 'There must be a fair return upon the reason- able value of the property at the time it is being used for the public' "In the case of the Lincoln Gas Co. v. Lincoln, 223, U S. 357, 32 Sup. Ct. 272, 56 L. Ed. 466, the court said: " 'In this as in every other legislative rate case, there are presented three questions of prime im- portance: First, the present reasonable value of the company's plant engaged in the regulated bus- iness; second, what will be the probable effect of the reduced rate upon the future net income from the property engaged in service to the public ; and, third, in ascertaining the probable net income, under the reduced rates prescribed, what deduc- tion, if any, should be made from the gross re- ceipts as a fund to preserve the property from future depreciation?" "In the case of Brymer v. Butler Water Co. 179 Pa. 231, 250, 36 iVtl. 249-251 (36 L. R. A. 260), the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania said: " 'Ordinarily, that is a reasonable charge or sys- tem of charges which yields a fair return upon the investment Fixed charges and the costs of main- tenance and operation must first be provided for. Then the interests of the owners of the property are to be considered. They are entitled to a rate 66 of return, if their property will earn it, not less than the legal rate of interest; and a system of charges that yields no more income than is fairly required to maintain the plant, pay fixed charges and operating expenses, provide a suitable fund for the payment of debts, and pay a fair profit to the owners of the property, cannot be unrea- sonable.' "In the case of the Kennehec Water District v. Waterville, 97 Me. 185, 204, 54 Atl. 6, 14 (60 L. R. A. 856 ) , the Supreme Court of Maine said : " 'The elemental principles thus far noted may be summarized as, on the one hand, the right of the company to derive fair income, based upon the fair value of the property at the time it is being used for the public, taking into account the cost of maintenance or depreciation, and current operating expenses; and, on the other hand, the right of the public to have no more exacted than the services in themselves are worth.' " Before I finish my discussion of the finance question and proceed to answer your Honor's question of a mo- ment ago, I want to call your attention to the value of this property as sho^Ti by its earnings and expenses, and its operating cost. These motormen and conductors are interested in the operating cost if they are interested at all, but not in connection with the total sum of money that is produced. I will introduce into my argument as a whole the comparative statement of earnings and expenses for the years of 1911 and 1912, which is on the desk of each one of the members of the commission. It shows, of course, this company had revenues from a number of different sources; car operations, the rental of buildings, the rental of its offices in the Traction and Terminal Building, the rental of its train shed, and from various interurban companies that operate over the tracks of the terminal company into the train shed, both passenger 67 and freight, and from advertising privileges and hauling newspapers. Mr. Clark: Dog permits? Mr. Latta: Dog permits, and from a great number of other sources; some large amounts and some small. Now, I wish to call your attention to the fact that the expenditure of the company for its maintenance of way and structures, and for the maintenance of its equipment, is very liberal; that it is the policy of this company, as shown by its expenditures in that particular, to keep its property well in hand. In 1913, |366,240.00 were spent for maintenance of way and structures alone. Mr Clark : I would like to inquire the nature of that expenditure, whether any of it was for entirely new work? Mr. Latta: It is itemized on the next sheet, your Honor. It shows the amounts for track and bridges, and the amounts for street paving and maintenance of over- head structure, maintenance of buildings and fixtures and maintenance of the Terminal Building. All the items are in the first section of the second subdivision of this statement. Now, Conducting Transportation ; the total cost of con- ducting transportation in 1912 was |633,000, and more. It is shown elsewhere that the wages of conductors and motormen amounted to $510,000 approximately. Of course, there are other items connected with conducting transportation in addition to the wages of the motormen and conductors. The cost of administration is very light. There is a sinking fund provided, which is, of course, justifiable even for rate-making purposes, and the interest on bonds and other such items are a fixed amount. We showed that upon 68 the stock there was declared a dividend of $200,00Q, which is four per cent on the |5,000,000 stock of this company, but the total receipts of the company for the same year fell short of enough to declare that dividend by |60,703.98, creating a deficit of that amount in the actual accounts for that year. 69 jj Oita^lOiO •iHO«P00O-^i-l THia NMOSiM t- rH lO t- PJ O t-M •<1< tJ" cq t- O O r-( OS CO m oj U * ooeoeo iH la .Hih la eo -^eQio n «o «o •* o» ■* r-i lo •* ■* «e c-ot- •lOOlO Ot-N OSNtD ••0 CT500 0(M«0 iH t-io 00 l-COO •T-( a» •OJ OlOO iHM ■*-* •iH (M'^jteo «oia ■*o 'tH oscous ■*rH T)" (Moot-'* t -* ooooOn Oi-iu5ooioooto-*_to 05 -^OO'* t-C<5 rH 7-100 iHrt" r-i eo eo ooo ■ijteo (MCM tet-^ tOrH eoffj oeooeo t-OO'^tO e0 5<3 0o"oo t-eooo t- eotoc^ioo teotcotooeo t-OO 05 C5 Tt< OS •* eq r-IOOtO t--*itoeooooo»eo-*ooeoo5 t0r-lr-l00t00'*t-'*t0t0 05 eo'eor-Tt^T c73 is C-M S 3 o O oh "^ "^ M to §5 I o o "-c :2.S oil •■S"- 0§§ OOO Z^R ftO ■ • rat-tXtii^ Mot Q ^■:; '^'::3 ^"^ ■•- r-^ oi P» « ™ -a > o"d gm CO— m e! CO Co ^oWg ^ S5 S ao o P O 4) BJ o fi — r; =*^ f-iOQ a> tH bo H bSbO S 3 S j:3 fl fi o to b ;i 70 ■^ ■<*• OS 00 © 00 o> i-< 00 00 00 iH CO CO la C o c9W 0dcO06uSOS'«)t^ CQU3U3C4 0St-U3 iH ■«" 1-1 iH 0> •OS eo • •CO CO • .'od us ', .us 00 . .05 CO . •N ot-ooos .CO eoect-c<« ea 00U5CO-<»< 'iH Ok O ^ id N C^ •C<>i-lrH c S3 to rH C ® .(^^^^ ■ t- ■^•00 CO • i-t .co-*d •CD .t-osce ■■* ■ci<^.n ;oo •r-IOSrJ< .OS .CVS s » "^ ft B! O _S fa C3 CO •<*< CO CO CO OS ■* OCOU5USO CO OS t>eo -co-*ooco us '^USOOUS CO OOCOCOiH .ec ecus CO • us eOrHUS t- T-< T-l OS CD CD N C- CO OS 1-1 OS CD rH ■* i-i CO eo 00 OS CD OS i-iost-t-oc> ^ ususoscoeocs •* t-^ododuscoo ■* tH e!• CO 1-1 ■* 00 OS 00 ■* o CO OS e.S=8S : uPQWHpqH : Ih:;vi $ . ccc c ccaS H (U « N us CJS CO o ooco e«i CD o OS CO eq t- equso CO Tf CD rH OS OS Cfl CO •«»• O (MrHN'^USeOOS COOSO' OSOS USTHt- rHOSUS N OS eqeo • C 00 CO COM" est- OS us 00 00 OS 00 ooose«s TfoOO pL| 0) • to ;5 o Ob i*":^ o " ® 4) o • ^Ph • °<1H • Pho : o ft • ft c • • t- fi C5 cS • ©rT 3 fH I1 e mfi hetj U OSOr-l mt-t-eqJ««oo50>t-oMioooM M o to • iore>-»> M T) Sh .^- • US • .CD • 00 «o rHrH . ■^00 • .03 • •1-1 • 'eo ■ T-ioJ T)5i>: • 'i-i ; 'o ■ eoiM eceo 00 . I"5 ! •*■<»< VXD ' ."* . •rH • tIHtH • • eo • • 00 • •rH • occoo O3CO00 • ■* • to •IN o • o • ■to to o • o ■ ■* '. . .to • o • eo cq • OO^t^CO-ftlt-iHlMT-IOOCOOOt^lrttMrH OTHOO[-'*OOOOtOr-(C-'*tOOO'S<000 M'^CSCitOt-M'^t^l^C^lt-tOt^tOT ooeooooooeo ooeoom-^us 000000300 ooeooeo 00 o iM o e-i 2 T-rT-Tc^reOliSC^I to oTo^ 00 0> 00 0^05 •**oo '"' »aeo iHi-(»qiH tHtHMOs'* eotoio eM§fcE.dC Ox d )00lOi<00« ) t-toKiH 100-^LOi-J[-^t-" OOOoJ o^^eo iHiH-w lalom coeoc^i iMM _j 'C'O C C o O xW tC-J to S. ^ !=• w« -up gS»iS"^So LAt1< O o ^ 6 o og H '^ iC t3 ? H q; . . (UphHI-l cfe C033 ^ n bi) be 2 C i? 72 Now it can certainly not be said that there is anything, as far as this proceeding is concerned, which is subject to criticism in the financial operations of the company, and I especially want to call your Honors' attention to the two charts which we have had prepared here to show that the prosperity of this company is from its invest- ment and not from its actual operation of cars. The first chart, the one with the shaded portion, shows that the actual operation of this company produced .0424 for each passenger carried. That is what flows into the treasury of the company from the conductors of the company by the collection of fares. There is a graphical illustration upon this chart showing the amount of fran- chise compensation by the reduction of the fare from five cents. That chart shows that if this company had had no source of revenue except from the passengers carried by it it would have had a very considerable deficit. Chairman Duncan: That don't mean that to me. If your statement is true, that this property down here is valued as it is, there is very little of it that is used and useful for the convenience of the public in the conduct of your transportation business. On your own statement you would have nothing like the money that you claim is in it It is not in there for transportation purposes. You get hundreds of thousands of dollars office rent and things of that kind. That property is not used for the public at all. That is a private investment. Mr. Latta : Your Honor, we are dealing with the rate of pay of motormen and conductors. They have no in- terest in the revenues that flow to the company from the rental of that property. Their labor does not help pro- duce that revenue. We are talking about a proper wage from the revenues 73 of this company. The motormen and conductors by their labor do not produce any part of the revenue that comes from the Traction and Terminal Station, or from the property that adjoins the terminal station and is used in the business of this company. My point is this, and I think it is well taken; my point is, the motormen and conductors can base their claim to an increase in wage upon the prosperity of this company only from its oper- ating receipts. They are not entitled to dip into the revenues of this company from its investment in real es- tate. They are not entitled to have anything paid to them from the revenues produced by rentals in the Traction and Terminal Building or from revenues produced by the operation of interurban cars into the passenger terminal. We must look to the question of whether the company has greatly prospered as a result of the labor of these motor- men and conductors — if that is a proper subject of in- quiry at all — to determine whether or not they are being adequately paid. This chart shows, and I think it is good argument, and I think it is conclusive argument, your Honors, that if this company had had no revenue except from the labor of these motormen and conductors and the men who are associated with them in the car operation — I consider power houses and everything that goes to the operation as a proper element to be taken into consideration, but I mean revenue from the; operation of cars, revenue from passengers carried — the company would not have prospered. It would now be in a period of depression. It could not pay anything to its stock- holders. It could not even keep up its maintenance on the present basis, and pay its fixed charges also. It would have a deficit, a large deficit, because from passengers alone the revenues of this company are not sufficient, your 74 Honors, to keep up the maintenance charges, keep up the fixed charges and pay anything at all to the stockholders. On the contrary, a tremendous deficit is the result. 76 Chart showing actual revenues per passenger and actual operation costs and deficit which would result If company had no other revenue : Basis Year 1912. Maintenance way and structures 004372c Maintenance of equipment 003184c Power 005471c Conducting transportation 009281c Injuries and damages and insurance 001708c Administration expenses 002517c Taxes 003029c Fixed charges 013548c Sinking funds 001322c Total 044432c Less deficit 001950c Average per passenger 042482c The computation from which chart is made does not include the Terminal Building and stations, or the revenue derived therefrom, or cost of maintenance thereof, or fixed charges thereon, but is based solely upon car earnings. The apparent deficit shown is in fact overcome by the earnings from interurban cars and the earnings of the Passenger Station and Buildings, car adverftising" and rentals on real estate adjoining Terminal Building, dis- mantled barns, etc. 76 Now, the second chart shows that to the extent this company has prospered, to the extent that its stock- holders were able last year to have a dividend declared to them amounting to |200,000, the necessary revenues were produced from additional sources in which these motormen and conductors have no right to share. The actual result which has enabled the company to pay anything at all to Its stockholders and maintain any kind of a sinking fund to keep up this property, has come from the fact that it operates all this additional property; producing revenues in addition to those from car opera- tion. These additional revenues account for its prosper- ity. 77 Actual distribution of total earnings, adding to actual revenue from each passenger an arbitrary proportion of earnings from other sources. Basis Year 1912. Maintenance of way and structures 004372c Maintenance of equipment 003184c Power 005471c Conducting transportation 009281c Injuries, damages and insurance 001708c Administration expenses 002517c Taxes 003029c Fixed charges 013548c Sinking funds 001322c Balance for construction, dividends, etc 001813c Total 046245c 78 Now 1 think that is all I wish to say on the subject of capitalization. Chairman Duncan: Suppose your cars were not running. Mr. Latta: If the city cars were not running, it would not make a particle of difference to the rental prop- erty proper, of the Traction Terminal Building. Of course, if the interurban cars stopped running, it would make a difference. In that connection, before I pass to a direct answer to your Honor's question, there are just two or three things I want to comment on. It has been stated here by the counsel for this Com- mittee that fifty per cent, of all the wage earners in the United States earn less than $500 a year. That state- ment is taken, he said, from the Census Reports. If that statement be true, and I have no reason to doubt it, it should be remembered that no man in the Car Service Department of this Company needs to work for |500 a year; that the rate is there, and the work is there to pro- duce for him a very considerable sum more than that at and from the very beginning of his employment. Also these wages are so arranged that after a man has been with this Company for five years and more he may earn |1000 a year, twice as much as the average wage-earner in the United States, according to the figures given by these gentlemen. I want to call your Honor's attention also to the fact that during the course of this evidence, and in a running comment between Mr. Murphy and Judge Roby, Judge Roby admitted that the true test of the initial wage is the market value of the labor in the open competitive market. I conceive that to be the only test for the initial wage, but 1 think there is a very different test, your Honors, for the 79 maximum wage. In my Judgment, after a man has been with this company for several years and has progressed through various stages of employment, he is entitled to a greater wage. I do not agree with Judge Roby that his compensation for his experience, and because of his standing and ability as he goes on with this Company, should be confined to some marks on his sleeve. I think after a man has been in the employ of this Company for a number of years, the test should be whether or not the wage is commensurate with the value of the service he renders. Under present conditions in a large property like this, that test cannot be accurately and absolutely followed, because all tendency nowadays, especially through the in- fluence of unions, is to level the men. So you can say, "John Jones, I think you are a better man than Tom Smith and I will pay you a cent more an hour," although both men may have been with the Company the same length of time. You cannot do that now. You have to strike an average. You must level by some different standard than the one suggested by Judge Roby, but you must have some kind of a level as a practical basis. The ideal situation is to pay every man the actual value of his labor. That is what you ought to do. But in practi- cal operation you have to get at it by some kind of a leveling process as nearly equitable as possible. That is why we have the sliding scale. As to the men who are in the upper stages of this com- pany's service, I undertake to say the evidence in this case is overwhelmingly to the point that they are receiving a wage commensurate with the value of their services. I based that on the proposition that they have been sat- isfied with it. These gentleman, as the attorneys for this 80 committee, produced a few men, two or three, and not- ably the three members of this committee, and perhaps two or three others, who have been with this company for a number of years, and who are receiving the maxi- mum rate. Not one of those men complained of the amount of his wage, not one. ^Ir, Brown, Mr. White and Mr. Belch did not complain of the amount of their wage, neither of them. And forty-two of the old men, of the old and tried and seasoned employees of this company, came into this court and told your Honors that the wage is satisfactory and that it is not only satisfacory to them individually, but that it has been satisfactory to the great majority of these men, who before this disturbance were going about their work in the ordinary way, cheerful and without complaint. So we have a wage here in its initial stage which comports with the market rate in this city, and we have a maximum operating wage that is shown by the overwhelming evidence to be satisfactory. Now, for the direct answer to your Honor's question. It is business of the state, and it is the business of the Public Service Commission as an arm of the state gov- ernment in dealing with public service corporations, to represent the rate payer. In case of an institution like this, where the rate is fixed, then it is the business of the Public Srvice Commission to see that the rate payer gets the maximum of service for the rate that is fixed by law\ WTiere the rate is not fixed, it is the business of the state, and it is the business of the Public Service Commission as an arm of the state to see that that institution is economically conducted, so the rate may be reduced for the benefit of the rate payer — the public — and I assert as a proposition which I do not believe can be successfully contradicted, that a public service corporation has no 81 more right to pay an excessive price for its labor thau it has a right to pay an excessive price for iron, or steel, or hricks, or for thig salaries of its oflftcers, or for any other purpose. Your Honors would not let this company squander its money in paying high salaries to its officers. It has no right to do so; it must run its business econoiii ically ; so the rate payers — the public — may get the grfii r- est amount of service for the rate that is paid. Chairman Duncn: Under no condition would we have jurisdiction over the salaries. Mr. Latta: You have jurisdiction to make this com- pany conduct its business economically. You would not say perhaps, it should pay so much to one particular man. Chairman Duncan : We would say that so much would be a reasonable salary, and if the stockholders wanted to pay more, they could cut down the dividends. Mr. Latta : The general proposition is the one that I am advocating. That was an illustration merely. The public service corporation must pay for what it gets no more than the market rate; no more than is necessary to expend for what it gets in order that the public itself may be benefited from the successful, economical, and proper operation of the property, and get the greatest possible amount of service, and get it as economically as possible. Now if it be shown in this case, or in any other case, that the corporation is paying a sufficient amount for its labor to attract a sufficient quantity of labor and a sat- isfacory quality — that is just as important as quantity, a satisfactory quality — and that corpoartion is engaged in public service, I say that corporation has no right to pay fancy wages and has no right to pay more than the market value or that which is necessary to procure the 82 labor it should have. Nobody will claim here we have not a sufficient quantity of labor. Men are flocking to this company; ten times as many as we can employ. Nobody will assert we have not the proper quality of labor. We have men with this company that any of us would be proud to be associated with; men in the car service de- partment operating cars here who are a credit to the cit- izenship of this state and this city. If then this commis- sion comes to the conclusion that this company is paying a sufficient wage to attract to it a proper quantiy of labor, and a proper quality of labor, I undertake to say it is against public policy for these wages to be raised; be- cause the public has an interest which is distinctly dif- ferrent from that of any man who gets money from the company as a wage earner, or in any other capacity. The public has a right to see that the company manages its business economically so that it may get as much ser- vice as possible, and it has a further right to see that the property is properly conducted so that when the fran- chise runs out and the question of rates comes up the rates may be reduced if possible for the benefit of the pub lie at large. Does that answer your Honor's question? Chairman Duncan : It gives your views of it. Mr. Latta: Before I leave the rate question entirely, Mr. Chairman, I wish to add, without A^ery much com- ment, that we do not concede that there are any persons interested in this arbitration except the car service men. The contract of November 7th specifies that the men who went out on strike on October 31st, are the persons with whom the negotiation was had. That contract was signed by a committee of car service men alone. Afterwards there was an attempt to bring in the other departments. As far as the other departments are concerned, the evi- 83 dence shows here, and I think pretty conclusively, that we are paying as much as other people are paying for like service, and we are paying sufficient wages to attract the proper kind of men, and no especial hardship exists in working for this company either in its carpenter shop, repair shop, or in its power house. I will not go into detail about the wages in that con- nection. We pay our engineer a little more than other companies pay. We have the same number of hours other companies have, and in the shop we pay for over- time. I have not had called to my attention any special hardship upon any employee in the power house or shops, which calls for any. special comment in this argument. As to conditions; I will not go through the conditions that are called in question here in their order, because my time is getting short. They may be chiefly divided into questions concerning hours and questions concern- ing runs, which also involve hours. There has been a complete breakdown upon the part of this committee in its effort to show that it is practical to arrange these runs differently or other than as they are now arranged. They are the result of twenty years' growth in this city. They are designed to meet the par- ticularly conditions which exist on each line, and it is admitted by the witnesses for the committee that it is necessary to conform the runs on each line to condi- tions on that line. Mr. Thorpe made an offer to show he could devise runs, and I cross examined on this only to a limited extent because his cross examination was stopped when the attorney for the committee announced that he would produce an expert to make these runs ; but I cross examined him just far enough to show that he did not understand the conditions, and that is all I had in 84 mind to show. The schedule which he produced was for some line which he claimed would take three hours to make a round trip. He had the last car out leaving the barn in the morning at 6:10, and an interval between the starting of that car and the return of the first car of two hours, lacking three minutes, during which time there would be no car at all. Not only that, but he had the car which left the barn at 6:22 in the morning re- lieved at 11:21, and taken up by the succeeding crew at 12:21. Now, if that line is of sufficient length to take three hours to make a round trip, that car would be at the time it is relieved, according to his schedule, one- third of the way back from the end of the line. It would not be at the terminus, or at the further terminus but would be one-third of the way back from the further terminus at the time it would be relieved — 11:21 — and there would be no crew to take it until 12:21. In other words, it would be standing there blocking the line with nobody to run it. Mr. Payne: There is no run of three hours, is there, in this city? Mr. Latta: No. Mr. Payne : None of an hour, is there? Mr. Latta : There are some runs of an hour. I simply use this as an illustration to show that it will not do for a man who is unfamiliar with these lines to come in here and say, "This is not practicable, you could have 75 per cent, of these runs earlies and lates." He is with- out knowledge of the conditions. I simply call your Honors' attention to the fact that our evidence is virtually unchallenged. Chairman Duncan: The more earlies and lates you have the better it is for the company? 85 Mr. Latta: The more earlies and lates you can have, and carry on schedule, the better it is for the company. It is to the interest of the company. But when you take a line that is multiplied three times over at the rush hours, as is necessary on some lines in this city, it is perfectly evident to a man at first glance you cannot have seventy- five per cent of those runs earlies and lates. I have also introduced in evidence the ordinances of the city to show that schedules have to be approved by the Board of Public Works. Chairman Duncan: Your time is pretty well up. There are two or three things I would like to hear you talk about. One of the conditions that appeals to me to be a hardship is this continual reporting of the extra men. What is your view in the way of relief on that? Mr. Latta: My view is there is some hardship con- nected with it. That it is a hardship which can be ut- terly eliminated, I doubt. I think it should rest to some extent in the discretion of the barn foremen as it now does, to let the man who works late the night before re- port late the next day, and not require him to show up early in the morning That is done to some extent, and I do not see any reason why it should not be largely done. Other men can surely be gotten for that early showup, but as to making a hard and fast rule about reporting, under present conditions I fail to see how it can be done. We must get the cars out, and it is in evidence here it is most difficult to get these men to report. Sometimes a man will telephone in at the very last minute he cannot come on account of sickness of himself or some of his family. He is unable to report, and it is necessary to have a stock of extra men on hand. Chairman Duncan : My idea would be in the absence 86 of sickness, failure of a regular man to report ought to be a breach of discipline subject to punishment of some sort. Mr. Latta: These gentlemen complain we put them on the bench, and that it is a hardship to put them on the bench more than one day. Chairman Duncan: If you have that kind of a rule that these men must report or have a good excuse for not reporting — of course, no man should be punished if he cannot report on account of sickness. Mr. Latta: Yes^ or illness in his family. My judg- ment about that is there should be a certain amount of dsicretion used by the barn foremen. I do not think it is possible to make a hard and fast rule. Chairman Duncan : What is the objection, if any, to a minimum wage for these extra men who are required to report and don't get work? Mr. Latta : I do not think there should be a minimum on the day. The Cincinnati Board of Arbitration fixed it by the month; that there should be a minimum wage of 145.00 a month ; that they should make at least |45.00 a month. These men make more than |45.00 a month, if they report for work. Chairman Duncan : If he reports three or four times a day and don't get a run, he would feel ugly about it. I know I would. If they know they are going to get some money for it, that is different. Mr. Latta: I speak for myself alone when I say it appeals to my sense of justice that there should be a minimum for the month, a guarantee of some kind for the month. I do not think it should be for the day, be- cause that is too narrow a margin. I want to say that I do not especially desire to bind the company by this 87 statement. I want to speak for myself alone when I say it appeals to my sense of justice there should be for the month some kind of a minimum guarantee for the man who faithfully shows up every day and follows the rule in that respect. Chairman Duncan: That is one condition you think ought to be corrected? Mr. Latta: I do not think it is really a hardship, because these men earn as much as they can ask for a guarantee, but I do not think it is inequitable to say there should be some kind of a guarantee. Is there any other question you want answered? Mr. McClurb: I was going to ask you this, whether or not, mth reference to the hours, whether or not the rule fixed, what is known as the "Human Endurance" law, would not be a reasonable rule to adopt; that is to say, no person shall be required to be on duty more than sixteen hours without eight hours off for rest? Mr. Latta: Your Honor, that situation upon its face in this particular case looks much worse than it, in fact, is. A man comes before you and says, "I have to work eighteen hours to get ten hours pay." When we come to investigate, we find it is not that way; that that man has been home asleep a good part of that time. Mr. McCllre: That may be true, and is true no doubt, in some of these instances, but in some I notice there is as much as three hours or two hours and a half, or four hours. That time, unless a man is favorably located with reference to his employment, cannot be taken for rest, for such rest as the human system needs and requires. Mr. Latta: Those cases, your Honor, you will find upon further examination, are such that their runs are completed at the outside in fourteen hours. We have 88 some runs that go over eighteen hours, spread time, if you count the large intervening time. But we do not have a case where the break is two or three hours in which the run is not completed within fourteen hours. I think I am safe in saying they are all completed in fourteen hours where the break is only tv\^o or three hours. Mr. Payne: There are several instances here where continuous hours of labor have gone as high as eighteen, and I think one twenty-four. Mr. Latta: Yes. I haven't the explanation of those particular cases. It has been shown here that men some- times in emergencies have to work long hours. Chairman Duncan: That don't appeal to me as a very substantial reason, because I take it in my business, reared on a farm, there came times when we would have to work nearly all day and night, and in the law busi- ness your experience has been and so has mine, that some- times you have to put out the best that is in you. You cannot avoid that. Here is a condition I would like to hear you on. Me. McClure: A farm does not bear a true analogy to this situation. I know something about the farm my- self — I am not particularly bragging about it — but here it is day in and day out, week in and week out all the year around. I am speaking about sixteen hours or something like that, where it is necessary to give attention in order to get in the time they do actually serve? Chairman Duncan: The other point I would like to hear you on is this: What way have you to suggest by which these men may be entitled upon request, at least, to have an off day. I do not believe any man ought to 89 be required to work 31 days in February, April and June to make a living. Mr. Latta: I don't, either. Chairman Duncan: What is your suggestion? That is one of the things I have made up my mind on there ought to be some provision by which McCarty and these other men may have a rest day. Mr. Latta: The evidence is, of course, they have a right to ask off when they want off. Chairman Duncan: There ought to be some provi- sion, if you can work it out — I don't care who works it out. Mr. Payne: A plan so each man could get off every other Sunday. Mr. Latta : I have no doubt that could be arranged. I think Sunday is the hardest day in the whole year to ar- range for a man who wants off, especially in the summer. Chairman Duncan: I am a great believer in a man having an opportunity to go to church once in a while, al- though I don't work at it very much. I believe it could be arranged that these men could have at least one Sunday in a month and one other rest day. Mr. Latta: I have no doubt of that. Chairman Duncan : I wish you would draft something on that order in the platform that would cover that con- dition, so if they requested it, there should be no question about the right. Mr. Latta: I think a man should make a request of that kind two days in advance, so a man could be pro- vided to take his place but if a man does not request it two days in advance, it could be assumed by the company he intended to work — something of that sort. The only other thing in that connection I want to call 90 your attention to is the testimony of Mr. MeCarty him- self as to the strenuousness of this work. If a man did not stop to consider the character of the work, he might think ten or eleven hours, or in some cases twelve hours work of this kind is too much. I would not want to pitch hay twelve hours at a stretch. I don't think anybody else would. Take the evidence of Mr. McCarty as a fair sample of the character of this work. He works a little less than twelve hours each day. He says he makes twenty-three round trips., which is forty-six single trips a day. He said of those trips six trips are heavy trips. His run is fifteen minutes long, takes fifteen minutes from one end to the other, and he said on the heavy trips it took him half of the time working diligently to take up the fares. So it takes him about seven and a half minutes of diligent work, strenuous work, we will say, to take up his fares on six of those trips. That is forty-five minutes a day of really strenuous work. The balance of the time the work is comparatively steady and comparatively light He has a nice, clean place to work; he meets his fellow- men and he has a chance to converse with them to a limit- ed extent. He is not shut up in a factory hearing a tremendous buzz of machinery, and with no opportunity for mental play ; but he is out among his fellows with com- paratively light work, except for forty-five minutes a day. That is not such hard work or such a tremendous strain on the human system that the eleven or twelve hours he spends at it is enough to materially injure him. I think his is a sample case; at least that is the only evidence in this case as to the particular manner in which, these men spend their time. A motorman, for instance, has no oc- casion to use his physical strength to amount to any- 91 thing. He has new and modern appliances ; he has a nice, clean place to work where he is not disturbed or interfered with. He is out on the street passing hither and yon, seeing things that suggest matters to his mind that interest him. It is not severe work, so that the hours perhaps, are not as large a factor in this case as they might be in other kinds of work. Now, there is one other topic, gentlemen, to which I really intended to allot more time than I have for it, and what I say in this connection, I wish to say at the outset is confined strictly to the institution with which I have to deal. I do not want my remarks to be construed as criticisms upon labor organizations generally, or upon the right of men to organize, which is undoubted — one, I think, a valuable right to them, one that ought to be pro- tected and respected — but we have to deal here with the question of whether this commission will marry this com- pany to this particular union. Now, in the first place, we have objected to its considera- tion at all upon the ground that it was not within the terms of the contract of November 7th, and evidence has been introduced here to show that there was a great effort upon the part of these gentlemen to have incorporated into that contract something that would amount to a recog- nition of the union. It was eliminated, and eliminated over their objection, and the contract was signed only by the committee of employes of this company. And it was specifically stated in that contract that all proceedings should be in the name of the committee of employees of this company. That contract said all grievances are to be presented at this time and heard at this time. It is not to be presumed there are any grievances except the 92 grievances now before this commission. The finding of this commission is to settle all matters in controversy for a period of three years. It is not to be presumed there are to be any additional grievances in which the body of men, as such, are interested within that period of three years. Therefore, it seems to me it is entirely beside the point to say that a contract shall be entered into which shall recognize that there may be grievances, or there will be grievances, to be determined within the period of three years, other than what we have here. We have a contract which is to settle the rights of these parties for three years. Why should we be required to enter into another contract, which will bear upon our relations with our men during that period of three years We have an arbitration here which is to settle all matters for that three years. Why should we be required to enter into a contract which will provide for another arbitration within that period of three years, covering any matters whatsoever? If there is a contract for any future arbitration, then the results of this arbitration, we might say, could be brought into question in future arbitrations, or at least something which might arise under the conditions which are promulgated by this arbitration could be brought in question under such an arbitration, so it is multiplying arbitration upon arbitra- tion. Moreover, it is clear we cannot be required to enter into any contract which will extend beyond the three years. It was the purpose of this contract to settle matters for three years and no longer; therefore, we cannot be re- quired to enter into any contract with anybody for any kind of an arbitration which will extend beyond this period of three years. There is no necessity for any contract on any subject within that period of three years. So if this 93 contract of November 7th amounts to anything at all, it eliminates necessity for another contract. Chairman Duncan : Assume now that a man was un- justly discharged. What is the remedy? Mr. Latta : Your Honor I do not understand that we can be required to enter into any contract which shall re- late to the specific grievance of any man not in existence at this time. That is not the spirit of this contract at all. This contract relates to common grievances, which relate to our body of men, and when they are settled, all grievances touching our men as a whole are disposed of for a period of three years. I do not under- stand it is the object of this contract to take up specific grievances of any one man, unless he is refused reinstate- ment because he was; a member of this union at the time the men went back to work. That is provided for. It is provided if any man is refused to be allowed to go back to work, it is his privilege to come before you. Chairman Duncan: There is a grievance; you won't hear the men. One of the things they want is how sub- sequent controversies shall be determined. That is the grievance set out here. Mr. Latta: I concede, your Honor, there may be in- dividual grievances of individual men, which may arise within the three years. Chairman Duncan: That is one of the^ things com- plained of. Mr. Latta : If I understand your Honor's question, it is confined to that? Chairman Duncan: Yes. Mr. Latta: As to the individual grievances of any individual man, your Honors may decide how they shall be dealt with, but that we are compelled to enter into any 94 contract as to how they shall be dealt with, I question. Your Honors may say if any one man has a grievance, he has the right to go to the superintendent with that griev- ance, and he may appeal to the president if not satisfied with the decision of the superintendent. He may obtain justice in such a manner as your Honors think is proper for him to obtain justice. I am speaking about compelling the company to enter into a contract. If I used language which could by any possibility mean that men should not have grievances ad- judged and disposed of after your Honor's decision in this case, I want to correct that language. I address my- self to the subject of compelling the company to enter into a further contract, and I say as to entering into any further contract, it is absolutely /unnecessary and un- called for, because the decision of your Honors upon the contract we have, will provide how the grievances of any individual man shall be redressed during that period of three years. So, it is not necessary for this company to enter into a contract to redress those grievances. It must redress them under the decision of this board of arbitra- tion in the manner your Honors say they shall be re- dressed. Have I made myself clear? Chairman Duncan: That was my idea of it all the time. Mr. Latta: I intended to confine my remarks to the question of entering into a new and subsequent contract, and to say that this company ought not to be required — it was never intended it should be required to enter into any other contract than the contract of November 7th. It would be inequitable to compel this company to enter into a contract with this particular association, and in that connection I want to briefly sketch its character, 95 its operations and the situation upon which it operated in the City of Indianapolis. Its character is indicated by the report of its general board as to its method of operation, in these words : "The wonderful success of the association in strikes and lock- outs may be attributed in no small degree to her formid- able defense resources. Street and electric railway man- agements have become aware of the fact that the associa- tion is in a position to make strikes and lockouts expensive by her extensive opportunity to continue struggles to the point where financial loss to the employing company will be greater than the additional expense of meeting rea- sonable demands of an organized body of men." Now, with that as its bill of rights, its constitution, it sends its representatives to the City of Indianapolis, and what was the situation in the City of Indianapolis at that time? The situation was that for twenty years we have had here industrial peace as far as this company is con- cerned. Fifty-five men, as fine men as ever stepped into this senatei chamber, have told you that there did not exist any grievance upon the part of this body of men against their company. The superintendent has come up from the ranks, the assistant superintendent has come up from the ranks, and all the barn foremen have come up from the ranks; and it was John, and Jim, and Joe, and they were all working together in the management of this company without friction, without hard feeling, without distrust. They have tried to make out that somebody connected with this company sent for these men. The evidence is absolutely to the contrary. On the 18th of August Mr. Mahon telegraphed to Rezin 96 Orr at the Denison Hotel in Indianapolis and said, "Thorpe and Shea have been instructed to report to you at once." Mr. Thorpe said he was telegraphed for. The next morning Mr. Rezin Orr received a telegram from Mr. Thorpe, saying he was leaving Pittsburg at 9:15. The next day, on August 20th, Mr. Orr and Mr. Thorpe sent a cipher telegram to Mr. Mahon, the meaning of which we do not know, but the meaning of which may be very readily guessed, "Division Six Party Two In- dianapolis Five Seventeen Twelve." On that very day Mahon telegraphed Rezin Orr and said, "Your telegram received and have wired the board. If immediate action is necessary I assure you of their support." On the 23rd Mr. Mahon telegraphed to Rezin Orr and said, "You have the sanction of the Board." Now, they continued their operations. There is not a word there, there is not a word anywhere in any of these telegrams from beginning to end that labor condi- tions in Indianapolis, so far as the street railway com- pany is concerned were improper. There is not anything about oppressed employees, about long hours, about poor pay, about grinding down upon the part of the employer — nothing. They were simply organizing a union. Nothing more is said until the 20th of the next month, "Company discharging men for membership, would ask endorsement to suspend work." On the 12th of September, Mr. Beatty telegraphed to Mr. Mahon, and said, "Send representative to Indian- apolis at once." 97 On the next day Mr. Gorman was telegraphed to by Mr Thorpe, and said, "Telegram received. You know con- dition. Come. Will take up expense with National Board." On the next day Mahon telegraphed Fitzgerald, "Look the situation over, if you need men possibly you can en- gage three or four from the trades there." On the next day Mahon telegraphed Thorpe and said, "Continue your work there with circulars until you hear from me, best not call a meeting yet." On the 28th day of September, Mr. Fox and others telegraphed Frank Morrison, Secretary of the American Federation of Labor, "We are now confronted with the work of organizing all labor connected with the street railway in Indianapolis, Terre Haute, Fort Wayne, and other Indiana cities. It is beyond our power to cover the field, so we appeal to you to send immediately two organ- izers to assist us." As to this night letter, Mr. Morrison telegraphed to Mr. Mahon, and said, "Your night letter received yesterday, and have delayed answering until could give definite an- swer. Will place one or more organizers in field to assist you. Wire me when you want them to start in." Mr. Mahon then telegraphed on the 2nd of October to Mr. Thorpe and said, "Have wire from Morrison that he is sending man today." Now, on the 12th of October — remember he had been here from the 18th day of August — on the 12th of October Mahon said in a telegram to Thorpe, "Have received in- struction from Samuel Grompers, President American Federation of Labor that there be no radical action taken until Secretary Wilson of the U. S. Government can get there and make an investigation. You will advise com- 98 mittees of Central body and carry out these instructions." On the 16th of October — here is the most significant telegram of all — on the 16th of October, A. S. Lowry telegraphed to William D. Mahon: "As chairman of special committee of Central Labor Union, speaking per- sonallly, I feel organized labor will back you morally and financially to a successful finish and will carry out any instructions you may give. We must assert and maintain the right to have these car men organized. Immediate action necessary. A. S. Lowry." "We will back you in any instructions you may give; we must assert the right to have these car men organized." Now, does that show, gentlemen, these men were groan- ing under their wrongs; wrongs that needed redress? — No, not by any means. It shows that Thorpe had been going as he said he had been going, from meeting to meeting in this city, addressing all labor organizations in this city, getting together his gang, and that Mr. Lowry was telegraphing to Mahon that, "We will back you, we will follow the instructions that you give; we will riot; we will break up property; we will throw Indianapolis into a reign of terror." "We assert the right to have these car men organized whether they want to be organized or not, whether they have grievances or not. It is our right to have them organized." That is the situation, gentlemen, on the 16th day of October. Now, that very day, Mr. Thorpe telegraphed to Mr. Mahon and said, 'Will you give me authority to suspend work here. Situation needs immediate action. Answer." 99 Do you remember what was happening in Indianapolis on that day? The evidence shows they had a meeting, I think at Germania Hall. After that meeting in the eve- ning the streets were full of these people, rioting, march- ing, throwing rocks and bricks through the ticket booth at Illinois and Washington street, and injuring the ticket man, beyond the control of the police, marching down and assaulting the Louisiana street bam, and carrying on such a riot there, that before that night was over a man was shot. That is the day Mr. Thorpe asked authority to suspend work, because he felt himself strong enough — as they say in the body of their constitution — he felt him- self strong enough to come into the City of Indianapolis, and make it so expensive for this company that it would be compelled to yield to his demands. All for the privilege, gentlemen, of having these men organized whether they willed it or not. Well, they did not call the strike. Why did they not call it? Mahon telegraphed back and said, "You under- stand the instructions of President Grompers requesting that there be no suspension there until the government made its investigation as you and the central body had re- quested I have promised him that that will be carrier out with demand that you carry out the instructions of the association." Mahon, in other words, to fulfill his promise to Presi- dent Gompers did not give the right to susi>end work, and therefore the proceedings of that day ended with rioting on Washington street, with the destruction of the ticket booth, and the assaulting of the Louisiana street barns, and the killing of a man. They were all ready. There are a large number of these telegrams ; how they 100 tied up the cars; haw they called the men out when the time came, and they felt strong enough to bring this com- pany to their feet; how they tried to call out all the men in Indiana everywhere, and how all the men in Indiana did not go out. Why? Because they had no organiza- tion. Why, gentlemen, it has been asserted here by these men that they had serveral hundred men in their union at that time. I have examined into the evidence in this case, and of all the men who have testified here in behalf of this com- mittee, eleven men only said that they were members of the union at the time that strike was called. They themselves called as witnesses man after man that did not know there was to be a strike, and never knew it until he reported for work the next day, was not a member of the union, never was approached on the subject of being a member of the union. Eleven men, and eleven men only who have ap- peared here as witnesses out of over one hundred men who have testified, were members of that union at the time the strike was called, and more than half those men were not employed by the company, and some of them had not been for three months before. Then what was done? They had another mass meeting. They sent a demand by two men to Mr. Todd, requiring him to answer upon a proposition that involved the ex- penditure by this company of over six hundred thousand dollars a year ; to answer by noon the next day. They did not make that demand in good faith. No business man would decide a matter of that magnitude on such notice. They never intended or expected he would make any an- swer to it in that time. They had their strike call in the hands of the printer at noon of that day, while Mr. Todd still had the right to make his answer. They suspended 101 work. They had a mass meeting that night. They boiled out of that mass meeting on the streets of Indianapolis, men like this little iron worker that appeared here to testify in rebuttal, and thus terrorized the loyal employees of this coniipany, and drove them from their ears. In spite of the rioting and destruction of property that occurred that night, in spite of the assaults, in spite of the fact that men were dragged off their cars, the next morning the loyal employees of this company reported for work, and 63 cars went on their regular runs. Does that indicate, gentlemen, that these men were moaning and groaning under grievances that had not been redressed? Just think of a man like Tom Mulrey who has been with this company 25 years, and raised a family of children and given them high school educations, although he himself only went as far as the third reader. He saved his money and lived an honorable life in this community. He was assaulted by these men, bricks were thrown through his car, and glass showered down over his face; he was com- pelled to complete his run that night with blood streaming down his face, and his eye filled with the shattered pieces of glass that had entered it. Think of Jim Finneron, who has been with this com- pany for thirty years. He is an ignorant man, but he is an honest man. Hq has saved his money and accumulated a competency, has held an honorable position, and was re- spected by his employer. When he tried to run his car on that day they stopped him and broke in the vestibule of that car, and cut his head, and he was taken into the Louisiana street barn with the blood streaming down over his face and clothes. Sixty-three cars in operation, gentlemen, and Judge Koby 102 says that the 42 men that came here out of the car service of this company, and told you they had no grievances, that they were satisfied, that everything was going along smoothly, those men are not to be believed. Now do you wonder that this company refuses, and has refused, and is contending here that under no considera- tion or circumstance could it be compelled to enter into a contract with this concern? I have only to read the language of the Federal Court in the case of the United States against Hagerty, 116 Federal Keporter, Page 515, to show how conduct such as this is regarded by the judges of this country, in the light of our laws. "It is not my purpose to enter into any lengthy discussion of the remedies by injunction other than to state what seems to me to be the well settled rule of law in its application to strikes^ — that the power of the court may be invoked to restrain and inhibit a combination which is formed to induce employes who are not dissatisfied with the terms of their em- ployment to strike for the purpose of inflicting in- jury and damage upon the employers. In the case we have under consideration the bill alleges that there is a combination of persons who are know^n as 'organizers/ agitators' and 'walking delegates,' who come from other states for the purpose of in- ducing a strike in the soft coal fields of the state of West Virginia ; that their object and purpose is to induce persons who are not dissatisfied with the terms of their employment, and, who are not asking any increase in their wages, to cease work for their employers, thereby inflicting great damage and in- jury upon them. It is to be observed that a very large portion of the miners in the employ of the Clarks- burg Fuel Company do not want, in the language of one of the agitators, who is enjoined, 'To lay down their picks and shovels and quit work.' I do not 103 qaestion the right of the employes of this company to quit work at any time they desire to do so, unless there is a contractual relation between them and the employer whicli should control their right to quit. At the same time I do not recognize the right of an employer to coerce the employes to continue their work when they desire to quit. But can it be said that where a conspiracy exists to control the em- ployes, as in this instance, either by threats, intimi- dation, or a resort to any other modes usually ac- companying the action of strikers, that such action upon their part is not only illegal, but a malicious and illegal interference with the employer's busi- ness? The question is its best answer. While I recognize the right for all laborers to combine for the purpose of protecting all their lawful rights, I do not recognize the right of laborers to conspire together to compel employes who are not dissatis- fied with their work in the mines to lay down their picks and shovels and to quit their work, without a just or proper reason therefor, merely to gratify a professional set of 'agitators, organizers, and walking delegates' who roam all over the country as agents for some combination, who are vampires that live and fatten on the honest labor of the coal miners of the country, and who are busy-bodies creating dissatisfaction amongst a class of people who are quiet, well disposed, and who do not want to be disturbed by the unceasing agitation of this class of people. In the case we have under con- sideration these defendants are known as profes- sional agitators, organizers, and walking delegates. They have nothing in common with the people who are employed in the mines of the Clarksburg Fuel Company. The evidence in this case shows that their only object and purpose is to get the people who are in the employment of the Clarksburg Fuel Company to go out upon a strike, as it is termed, for the purpose of compelling the owners of the mines to advance an increase in their wages. It discloses that the miners in the Pinnickkinnick 104 mines are making an average of |4 a day in excess of their legitimate expenses, many of whom have worked in foreign countries for less than a half a dollar a day. The defendants in this case are not laborers in the mines, and have no connection with them whatever. Their mission here is to foment trouble, create dissatisfaction among the employes in coal mines, producing strikes, which tends great- ly to damage and injure the business of the em- ployers. In this case there is no dissatisfaction among the larger number of the miners. Only a small part of them have quit the mines from fear of intimidation threats, and violence, but those re- maining in the mines say they will quit work unless they are protected against the threats of these agita- tors and organizers. The strong arm of the court of equity is invoked in this case, not to suppress the right of free speech, but to restrain and inhibit these defendants, whose only purpose is to bring about strikes, by trying to coerce people who are not dissatisfied with the terms of their employment, which results in inflicting injury and damage to their employers, as well as the employes. "It is apparent that, if these agitators are per- mitted to interfere with the orderly, well-disposed miners who are anxious to work, and contented with the wages they receive, in the end this contented class of miners would, through fear, intimidation, as well as threats, be induced to throw down their shovels and picks, and cease to work in the mines, whereby the Clarksburg Fuel Company would be greatly damaged. Not only would it be greatly damaged, but it would be prevented from fulfilling its contracts for the future delivery of the product of its mines. The right of a citizen to labor for wages that he is satisfied with is a right protected by law, and is entitled to the same protection as free speech, and should be better protected than the abuse of free speech, in which the organizers and agitators indulge in trying to produce strikes." 105 Now, they did that. The evidence shows that even when the city government was paralyzed; when the county gov- ernment was paralyzed; and when the streets of the City of Indianapolis were littered with the debris from these cars, this company stood firm upon its right that it would not contract with these men. It had no objection to meet- ing its employes ; it had never failed to meet its employes. Man after man has come here and told you Mr. Mahoney treated him as a gentleman. It did not then refuse to meet its employes, but it did refuse to meet this unlawful aggregation, who purposed to inflict itself upon this com- pany and upon these people by force and intimidation. Now, as a result of all that, what do they desire to ac- complish? They desire to restrict the right of this com- pany to run its business. They desire every time a man is discharged to proceed upon the assumption that the official discharging him is corrupt and crooked, and he has dis- charged him with some ulterior motive. They say, "You must show us he is properly discharged or we will take it to arbitration." They say if it is necessary to reduce the force of these men 25 per cent. — in answer to a question from the bench', they say, "We will dictate who shall be discharged." They want a closed shop, although it has been stated time and time again by the highest courts in this country that a closed shop is contrary to public policy. They want to say union men, and union men alone shall work; and that no other men shall work for this company, or be em- ployed. They want, in other words, to enter into joint operation of this property with this company. A condi- tion which will create constant friction. What has been the result so far? You have seen men come here and 106 show the greatest feeling against this company and its officers; stirring up hatred between this company and its employes ; making constant trouble. As Mr. Mahoney said, it is friction, friction, friction, all the time, where before there was industrial peace. That is what they desire to do, and they desire you men to say we must enter into a contract with them in order that they may do that to us. Now, gentlemen, I said to Mr. McNamee, "Is a strike according to your philosophy entitled to succeed, if it can only succeed by force, intimidation, and the destruction of property?" He answered, "No." It is inequitable that any strike should succeed where, by its own force, and by the wrongs which are behind it and produce it, it cannot succeed. This strike could not succeed. Why this strike would not have amounted to a picayune ; these men desired to work ; they were ready and willing to work ; they stood by the company on their jobs, and this strike would not have amounted to anything, it would have passed off like a breath, except for the violence and intimidation that was nsed. Should these men receive the benefits? Should they be rewarded when not having a cause that they could adequately present by peaceable methods — when they could not succeed without violating the law? — they neverthe- less violated the law so they could succeed? Is that equity ? It is an equitable principle, gentlemen, that is grounded in the very foundations of our government, that he who seeks equity must do equity. Is it equity to inflict a dam- age on this company of perhaps one hundred thousand dollars, to prevent its carrying forward its business, to disrupt its organization when the demand for that inter- ruption does not come from the men themselves, but is forced upon them by outside influences ; when in order to 107 make the strike succeed men have to be driven from their cars, and a tremendous crowd of hoodlums have to be gathered; if illegality has to preside over the whole mat- ter — is it equity that they should succeed and be rewarded in this case? If so, it is no longer an equitable principle that he who desires equity should do equity. Now in conclusion, I wish to thank you, gentlemen, very sincerely, for the attention you have given my client and myself in this case, and for the very great patience with which you have listened to this argument. And to express my absolute, unqualified belief that what you do you will do from a supreme sense of right. I wish to say that if it shall be the judgment of the members of this Commission, that they can properly announce an opinion setting forth the processes of reasoning by which they arrive at their conclusion, and the underlying principles which should govern in a case of this kind, I believe it would be the greatest step forward we have taken in arbi- tration proceedings in the United States up to the pres- ent time. Here is an absolutely impartial Commission, an arm of the Government. We have heretofore received from other commissions which may have deliberated in various parts of the United States no inkling of the prin- ciples which governed their respective decisions. We are, in my opinion, at the very beginning in some form or an- other of legalized arbitration, which will blot out from our history all excuse for a repetition of such a strike as this. Men will be ready and willing to fly to arbitration if they may know what their rights are, and may know the principles upon which their rights are to be deter- mined. Men will not resort to force and arms if they have any reasonable assurance that there are principles underlying arbitration which will be observed in the hear- 108 ing of such cases, and John Marshall himself had no greater opportunity for the exploitation of his wonderful ability, and his commanding integrity, than you gentle- men have in announcing to the world the rules and prin- ciples which should govern decisions in arbitration cases. If you shall see fit in your pleasure to do this I believe you will have siezed an opportunity to enshrine your- selves in the hearts of a grateful people. I thank you. 109 APPENDIX Containing certain items of evidence which could not be fully commented on in the time agreed upon for argu- ment. Under this contract the arbitration was held : PROPOSITION. 1. That the Indianapolis Traction and Terminal Com- pany agrees that all men who went out on the strike de- clared October 31, 1913, shall return to work mth full seniority rights and without prejudice and all men who were discharged on account of becoming members of a labor organization or contemplating the same be reinstat- ed without prejudice, but the company shall not be re- quired to reinstate any employe who has taken part in acts of violence against its property. Any employe whose reinstatement is refused shall have the right to be heard by the Public Service Commission of Indiana and if its decision is in his favor shall be reinstated. 2. That all grievances of every kind and character as to wages and conditions shall within five days from the resumption of the service by the Company be presented to and taken up by the Company, and if not satisfactorily adjusted within ten (10) days thereafter shall be referred to the Public Service Commission of the State of Indiana for final decision. All members of the Commission shall sit upon hearing and participate in decision. Said de- cision to be for a period of three years and to be binding upon all parties thereto. 3. This tentative agreement shall be signed by a com- 110 mittee of the Employes of the Traction and Terminal Company, and by Mr. Ethelbert Stewart, as a representa- tive of the United States Government, and Hon. Samuel M. Kalston, Grovernor of the State of Indiana, and the proper officials of the Traction and Terminal Company. 4. That all men shall return to work within a period of twelve (12) hours from the time of signing this agree- ment under the conditions formerly obtaining in their em- ployment and there shall be no further interference with the operation of any cars on the lines of the Traction and Terminal Company, or with any property or employe of said Company. 5. Said Piublic Service Commission, if the matter be referred to them, shall take up and hear evidence of all parties interested on said grievances as to wages, hours and conditions, and service, and render decision concern- ing same within a period of thirty (30) days from the first date of meeting. Said decision in effect to relate back to the time of resumption of work. 6. The above mentioned adjustment and arbitration shall proceed only in the name of the Committee of Em- ployes. Committee of Employes of Indianapolis Traction and Terminal Company. Representative of the United States Gov't. Governor of the State of Indiana. INDIANAPOLIS TRACTION AND TERMINAL COMPANY. By President. Ill It is also agreed that any employe who asks to be rein- stated and is refused reinstatment but is returned by de- cision of the Public Utilities Commission shall receive pay from the date of first application for work. 112 THESE GRIEVANCES WERE TRIED BY THE COM- MISSION WITH THE COMPANY'S ANSWER TO EACH SEPARATELY. First: Your employes express a grievance against the company in that the grievances of the employes, at present and those that may develop to them in the future are not permitted to be taken up with the duly constituted officials of the Company for adjustment by a committee recognized as a duly authorized committee of the Em- ployes' Association as chosen or elected by said Associa- tion. Your empolyes request that a condition of employ- ment be agreed upon by which said grievance may be ad- justed. 1. As to the first grievance presented: (a) The respondent objects to the presentation or C( sideration of this grievance for each of the followi reasons : (1) That the same is not within the scope of i contract of November 7, 1913, and is not one of t matters to be submitted to arbitration. (2) That the same is not within the jurisdicti of the Indiana Public Service Commission under 3f contract of November 7, 1913. (b) And the said respondent declines to accede to 1 said grievance for the reason that the said contra of November 7, 1913, and this arbitration thereup constitutes an adjudication and adjustment of grievances which have or may arise within a peri of three years, and that this respondent cannot required to enter into any contract extending beyo said time or having the effect of abrogating said c( tract of November 7, 1913. Second: Your employes express grievance against the Company, in that not 75% of the runs on the schedules are earlies and lates, completed within eleven consecutive hours; that all swing runs are not completed within four- teen consecutive hours; that all runs working less than 113 nine hours do not pay nine hours time; that time and one-half is not paid for all time worked in excess of the daily schedules. The employes ask that a condition of employment be established by the Company that will ac- cord to employes the conditions against which grievances are registered in this paragraph. 2. As to the second grievance : (a) The respondent sates that it is not practicable ii the operation of the respondent's road to furnish th* service required to accomodate the public in the Cit; of Indianapolis upon a schedule providing tha seventy-five per cent, of the runs shall be earlies an( lates, or that they shall be completed within elevei consecutive hours, or providing for the completion o swing runs within fourteen consecutive hours. And respondent declines to accede to the demanc that time and one-half shall be paid for all time wor] in excess of daily schedules, and that all runs work ing less than nine hours shall be paid nine hours time. Third: Your employes here file a grievance that all night, or owl cars working less than eight hours are not paid for nine hours time and that to receive nine hours pay for such service they must work the full nine hours. They ask that this grievance be adjusted by providing a condition of employment upon night cars by which not to exceed eight hours service shall be required on night cars, to be paid at the rate of nine hours time. Upon this sub- ject a further grievance is expressed against men of this service being required to work extra runs or trippers. 3. As to the third grievance : (a) Your respondent says that there is no foundatioi for said grievance; that in fact all owl cars operatec by said respondent, and all crews operating such cars operate for more than eight hours, and that there ii no run upon owl cars which operates less than nim hours. And your respondent further says that men runnini 114 owl cars are not required to work extra runs or trii pers. Fourth : The employes here file a grievance in that they are not paid thirty-two cents per hour for work as motor- men and conductors upon city line cars and 35 cents per hour upon interurban and suburban line cars; that air brakemen are not paid 45 cents per hour; that helpers in the air department are not paid 30 cents per hour; that carpenters are not paid 50 cents per hour ; that carpenters' helpers are not paid 30 cents per hour; that in the paint shop department stripers and sign painters are not paid 50 cents per hour, surface hands, coaters and finishers are not paid 40 cents per hour and that rough painters are not paid 30 cents per hour; that head pitmen are not paid 40 cents per hour and pitmen's helpers are not paid 35 cents per hour; that armature winders are not paid 45 cents per hour; that shop wiremen are not paid 40 cents per hour; that car wiremen and controller men are not paid 40 cents per hour and that apprentices are not paid 30 cents per hour; that in the car cleaning and sweepers' work the head car washer is not paid 35 cents per hour, helpers are not paid 30 cents per hour, that flagmen are not paid 28 cents per hour and sand dryers are not paid 30 cents per hour; that in the car inspecting department the head inspector is not paid 45 cents per hour ; head pitman and top work men are not paid 35 cents per hour and helj)- ers are not paid 30 cents per hour ; that employes specified in this paragraph are not paid time and one-half for all Sunday work and time and one-half for over time up to tivelve o'clock, p. m., and double time after 12 o'clock p. m., until 7 o'clock a. m. The employes request an adjustment of the grievances enumerated in this paragraph and ask that a condition of wage rates be established that will be acceptable. The employes further set forth as a grievance that tinners are not being paid 40 cents per hour and tin- ners' helpers are not receiving 30 cents per hour; that blacksmiths are not being paid 40 cents per hour for first fire. 35 cents for second fire and 27V> cents per hour for third fire for the first six months of service and 30 cents per hour thereafter so long as they remain on the third 115 fire and that 27^ cents per hour is not being paid to black- smiths' helpers ; that 45 cents per hour is not paid to steam fitters and 35 cents per hour is not being paid to steam fitters' helpers; that acetalyne welders are not paid 60 cents per hour ; that 30 cents per hour is not paid to drill pressmen and 40 cents per hour is not being paid to other employes of the machine shop department; that in the power house engineers are not paid 40 cents per hour, head firemen, boiler washers and allround men are not be- ing paid 35 cents per hour, firemen's helpers, turbine men, dynamo tenders, switchboard men, flue-blowers' assistant and ash and coal shovelers are not paid 30 cents per hour and oilers are not paid 25 cents per hour and that the service day is not 8 hours only, for all power house em- ployes; that car wiremen of the shop department are not receiving 30 cents per hour; that stock room men are not receiving 30 cents per hour; that trolley bench, bearing men and pavers and rammers are not receiving pay at 35 cents per hour; that wreck car helpers are not paid 32 cents per hour; that track men and pavers' helpers are not paid 30 cents per hour; that ten hours does not con- stitute tlie service day in the classes of employment here- in mentioned, except power house men; that time worked in excess of the service day is not paid at the rate of time and one-half. 4. In answer to the fourth grievance: (a) Your respondent objects to any consideration of the wages of interurban and suburban line men, for the reason that no such cars are operated by this Com- pany. (b) Your respondent objects to any consideration of the wages of shop men, power house men and track men, for the reason that it was not intended that said contract of November 7, 1913, should apply to this class of employment, but it was intended only that it should apply to men engaged in train service. (c) Your respondent, for answer to so much of said grievance as relates to the wages of car service men, says that since June 1, 1913, and at all times there- after this company has maintained a schedule of 116 wages applicable to men engaged in car service upc the following basis : Men employed 1 year or less 20 cents per hoi Men employed more than 1 year and less than 2 21 cents per hoi Men employed more than 2 years and less than 3 22 cents per hoi Men employed more than 3 years and less than 4 23 cents per hoi Men employed more than 4 years and less than 5 24 cents per hoi Men employed 5 years and over. . 25 cents per hoi That the foregoing rates of wages are reasonabl fair and just; that this company has at all tinu been able to procure labor in this department fc the rate of wage above stated, and at all times has ha application for employment from more men than could employ; that no previous knowledge or skill : required in the operation of said cars, and the ra1 of wages paid by this company is as high as other en ployers in Indianapolis are paying for men of tl same degree of skill and ability and in avenues of en ployment where the same degree of (physical an mental effort is required; that this company has volui tarily increased the wages of its men engaged in ca service from time to time during the past four yeai to such an extent that the men in short terms of sei vice have had an increase in wages amounting to abou eleven per cent., while those terms of service whic have been longer have made an increase of practicall twenty per cent, in four years, and that on and befoi the thirty-first day of October, 1913, car service me in the employ of this company were satisfied with th rate of wage paid and the working conditions, an there did not at that time exist and had not existe for several years prior thereto any dispute or grie^ ances whatever. That about four months prior to th said thirty-first day of October, 1913, outside labor aj itators, seeking to gain for themselves financial ac vantage, had been attempting to foment dissntisfac tion among the empolyes of this company, and did o 117 or about November 1, 1913, declare a strike, and through violent and unlawful means drag and beat the employes of this company from their cars, intimi- date them, and, by threats and personal violence, prevent them from operating the cars of this com- pany, and produced a condition of riot and anarchy in the streets of Indianapolis and the suspension of street car service, such persons pretending and holding themselves out to represent the employes of this com- pany, and claiming that grievances existed, whereas in truth and in fact no such grievances did exist, and the employes of this company engaged in car service did not desire to quit the company's service, and in truth and in fact were satisfied with the rate of wage which they were receiving, (d) As to so much of said grievance as relates to the wages of barn employes your respondent says, since June 1, 1913, this company has maintained a rate of wage for this class of employes according to the follow- ing schedule: WAGES OF BAEN EMPLOYES OF THE INDIAN- APOLIS TRACTION AND TERMINAL COMPANY Employment No. Hours Amount Foreman 9 84 84 per wk. |19.50 per wk. Foremen 1 84 per wk. 18.50 per wk. Foremen 2 84 per wk. 17.50 per wk. Asst. Foremen 2 84 per wk. 15.00 per wk. Car Shifters 1 84 per wk. 15.00 per wk. Car Shifters 1 84 per wk. .23 per hr. Car Shifters 3 84 per wk. .20 per hr. Car Shifters 3 84 per wk. .17 per hr. Car Shifters 1 84 per wk. .16 2-3 per hr. Car Shifters 5 84 per wk. .15 per hr. Car Shifters 1 84 per wk. .17^/2 P^^* l^r. Relief Car Men 1 84 per wk. .20 per hr. Relief Car Men 2 84 per wk. .171/2 per hr. Sweepers 12 84 per wk. il5 per hr. Watchmen 2 84 per wk. .15 per hr. Janitor 2 70 per wk. .15 per hr. Reading Statements 1 84 per wk. .15 per hr. 118 Employment No. Hours Amount Insp. (Rd. Officers) 1 84 per wk. 23.10 per wl Insp. (Rd. Officers) 3 84 per wk. 21.15 per wk Insp. (Rd. Officers) 5 84 per wk. 20.00 per wk Ticket Sellers 1 60 per week $17.50 Ticket Sellers 1 35 per week 11.55 Flagman 5 63 per week .12^ per hou: Flagman 1 70 per week .15 per houi: Flagman 2 84 per week .25 per hou: Switchboys 6 66 per week .10 20-33 per hou; That said rate of wage -is reasonable compensatioi for the services rendered and is and has been suffi cient to enable this company to obtain all the help re quired, and to attract applications from more per sons than could be given employment, and is the cur rent rate of wage for like service requiring like ap plication of skill and ability in the City of Indian apolis, and is fair, just and reasonable. (e) As to so much of said grievance No. 4 as relates t< the wages of shop empolyes, your respondent makei answer that since June 1, 1913, this company ha; maintained the followng wage scale applicable U this class of labor: LIST OF SHOP EMPLOYES— INDIANAPOLIS TRAC TION AND TERMINAL COMPANY. Carpenter Department. 1 Foreman |25.00 per weel 1 Asst. Foreman 19.50 per weel 1 Pattern Maker 35 per houi 2 Machine Hands 30 per houi 8 1st Class Carpenters 27^ per houj 30 2nd Class Carpenters 25 per hou] 2 3rd Class Carpenters 221/^ per houi 2 Carpenter's Helpers 20 per houi 5 Laborers 17^ per houi Total 50 119 Car Inspectors. 1 Chief Inspector 100.00 permontb 1 Clerk V 40.00 per month 3 Insp. (Head Barn Insp.) 27i/^ per hour 8 Insp. (AboveSyrs.) 25 per hour 2 Insp. ( 4 yrs. to 5 yrs. ) 24 per hour 3 Insp. ( 3 yrs. to 4 yrs. ) 23 per hour 5 Insp. (Car Shifters) 22^/^ per hour 1 Insp. (2 yrs. to 3 yrs 22 per hour 5 Insp. ( 1 yr. to 2 yrs. ) 21 per hour 1 Insp. (6 mo. to 1 yr.) 20 per hour 14 Insp. ( to 6 mo. ) 19 per hour Total 44 ( Maximum rate for 12 hr. men .221/2 per hour Car Washers in Paint Shop. 3 Car Washers 20 per hour 20 Car Washers 171/2 per hour Total 23 Paint Shop. 1 Foreman 25.00 per week 1 Asst. Foreman 18.00 per week 5 1st Class Painters 271/2 per hour 12 2ncl Class Painters 25 per hour 9 3rd Class Painters 22i^ per hour 1 Oar Washer 20 per hour 7 Car Washers 171^ per hour Total 36 Repair Shop. 1 Foreman 115.00 per month 1 Clerk 13.65 per week (Armature Dept.) 1 Foreman 18.00 per week 3 Winders 25 per hour 1 Winder 221/2 per hour 2 Winders 20 per hour 3 Banders 171/^ per hour 3 Tapers 15 per hour 1 Taper 10 per hour 120 (Controller Dept.) 1 Foreman _ 16.50 per weel 2 Controller repairmen (1st Class) 25 per hour (Wiring Dept.) 1 Foreman _ 16.50 per week 1 Wireman (1st Class) 25 per hour 1 Wireman (2nd Class) 22i/^ per hour 3 Wireman Helpers (1st Class) .20 per hour 3 Wireman Helpers (2nd Class) 19 per hour 1 Wireman Helper (3rd Class) 171/^ per hour (Machine Dept.) 1] Section Foreman 19.50 per week 3 Machinists (2nd Class) ... .271/^ per hour 3 Machinists (3rd Class) ... .25 per hour 1 Machinist Helper (1st Class) 221/^ per hour' 4 Machinist Helpers (2nd Class) 20 per hour 1 Tool Room Clerk 173^ per hour 2 Machinist Helpers 17^4 per hour (Tin Dept.) 1 Tinner (1st Class) 30 per hour 1 Tinner Helper 22i/^ per hour 1 Tinner Helper 17% per hour (Blacksmith Dept.) 1 Section Foreman 35 per hour 1 1st Class Blacksmith 30 per hour 1 1st Class Helper 22^^^ per hour 3 Experienced Helpers 20 per hour Total 53 121 (Truck Dept.) 1 Section Foreman 27l^ per hour 5 Pit Men (Above 4 yrs.) 25 per hour 1 Pit Man (3 yrs. to 4 yrs.) 24 per hour 1 Pit Man (2 yrs. to 3 yrs.) .23 per hour 1 Pit Man ( 1 yr. to 2 yrs. ) 22 per hour 1 Pit Man Helper (Above 1 yr.) 20 per hour 9 Pit Men (0 to 1 yr.) 19 per hour (Air Brake Dept.) 1 Section Foreman 271/2 per hour 1 Repairman (1st Class) 25 per hour 2 Repairman Helpers (1st Class) 20 per hour (Piping Dept.) 1 Section Foreman 271/^ per hour 1 Pipe Helper (1st Class) 20 per hour 1 Pipe Helper (2nd Class) 19 per hour ( Miscellaneous. ) 1 Welder 271/2 per hour 1 Trolley Man 20 per hour 4 Laborers I71/2 per hour 1 Laborer 15 per hour Total 33 Time and half for overtime. Straight time for Sun- days or Holidays. Day to be 10 hours except Satur- day which is 9 hours but paid for 10 hours. The scale for car washers and inspectors went into effect November 1st, 1913. That said rate of wage has been sufficient to pro- cure all the labor required in this branch of this company's affairs and to attract applications from a large number of persons who could not be employed, and is as high rate of wage as is ordinarily paid in the City of Indianapolis for serAlce requiring the same knowledge, skill, ability and application and is fair, just and reasonable. 122 (f) As to so much of said grievance No. 4 as relates 1 the wages of power station employes, this compaD makes answer that it has since June 1, 1913„ mai] tained the following scale of wages: POWER STATION SCALE OF WAGES. No. Title No. of Hours Amount 1 Chief Operating EngT 10 hrs. per day |28.85 per w! 2 Engineers 11 & 13 hrs. per day .25 per hi 2 Turbine Men 12 hrs. per day .20 per hi 1 Oiler 12 hrs. per day .20 per hi 2 Oilers 12 hrs. per day .19 per hi 2 W^ater Tenders 11 & 13 hrs. per day .25 per hi 6 Firemen 11 & 13 hrs. per day .20 per hi 5 Firemen & Hlprs. 11 & 13 hrs. per day .18 per hi 1 Firemen & Hlprs. 11 hrs. per day .20 per hi 1 Boiler Washer 12 hrs. per day .221^ per hi 1 Boiler Washer 11 hrs. per day .22 per hi 1 Operator 11 hrs. per day .22 per hi 1 Operator 13 hrs. per day .20 per hi 1 Operator 11 hrs. per day .181 per hi 2 Coal Men 12 hrs. per day .171/2 per hi 1 Trolleyman 11 hrs. per day .18 per hi 3 Laborers 11 hrs. per day .18 per hi 2 Watchman 12 hrs. per day .20 per hi 1 Machinist as needed .30 per hi 1 Carpenter 10 hrs. per day .25 per hi 1 Steam Shovel Man 12 hrs. per day .22 per h] Day men work 11 hours a day. Night men woi 13 hours a day. Overtime on same basis except m chinists and carpenters who are allowed time ar one-half for overtime. That said wage scale has been sufficient to attra more applicants than could be given employment ai to procure all the labor in this department which th company required and is as high as is generally pa: in the City of Indianapolis for w^ork requiring tl same knowledge, skill, ability and application, and fair, reasonable and just. 123 (g) As to so much of said grievance No. 4 as relates to the wages paid in the track department of this com- pany, your respondent makes answer that since June 1, 1913, it has maintained the following scale of wages in this department : SCALE OF WAGES PAID TRACK DEPARTMENT EMPLOYES. 703 Traction Bldg. Engineering Office (I. T. & T. and T. H. I. & E.) Joint. Supervising Engineer 1 $150.00 per mo. Tie Inspector & Engr 1 125.00 per mo. Office Asst. Engr 1 105.00 per mo. Asst. Engr 1 75.00 per mo. Rodman 1 .20 per hr. Rodman 1 .171^ per hr. Track^Clerical (West and Pratt) Employment No. Men Rates Hours Bookkeeper 1 $85.00 per mo. 60 Store & Time Keeper 1 16.50 per wk. 60 Time Keepers 2 12.00 per wk. 60 Time Keepers (as required) 3 10.50 per wk. 60 Yard Clerks 1 .25 per hr. 70 Belt Yards Yard Clerks 1 .20 per hr. 70 Gravel Pit Emergency Men 1 .20 per hr. 70 West & Pratt Emergency Men 1 .171/^ per hr. 70 Work Train Service. Train Master 1 .30 per hr. 66 Motorman 6 .25 per hr. 66 Motorman 2 .23 per hr. 66 Motorman 1 .22 per hr. 66 Motorman 2 .21 per hr. 66 Motorman 1 .20 per hr. 66 Trolley Tenders 12 .17l^ per hr. 66 124 Construction. Supervtisor 1 95.00 per mo. 1st Class Foremen ... 2 .30 per hr. 60 2nd Class Foremen 5 .25 per hr. 60 3rd Class Foremen 2 .221/2 per hr. 60 (Olrd. Men; Bending Foremen 1 .271/2 per hr- 60 1st Class Laborers 3 .20 per hr. 60 2nd Class laborers 200 more or less .ITI/2 per hr. 60 Maintenance. General Foreman 1 20.00 per wk. Machine Operators ... 2 .25 per hr. 60 ArcWeldei and Grindc Machine Helpers 3 .20 per hr. 60 2nd Class Labor (above) Curve Cleaners 13 10.60 per wk. 70 Watchman Day 1 .20 per hr. 70 Watchman Night 2 .171/2 per hr. 70 Watchman Night 15 10.00 per wk. 70 Water Boys (as required) 07l^ per hr. 60 Paving Department. Superintendent 1 25.00 per wk. 60 1st Class Foreman ... 1 .30 per hr. 60 2nd Class Foreman 3 .25 per hr. 60 3rd Class Foreman 1 .221/^ per hr. 60 Paving Labor 16 .20 per hr. 60 Ordinary Work (as required) 180 (more or less) 171/^ per hr. 60 Kettlemen 2 .I71/2 per hr. 66 Machine & Tool Department. General Foreman 1 100.00 per mo. 1st Class Engr. Blacksmith 1 .35 per hr. 60 Blacksmith 1 .30 per hr. 60 Helpers 2 .20 per hr. 60 125 Machine & Tool Department. Drill Runners 3 .20 per hr. 60 Sp. & St, Wk. Hoisting Engrs 2 .30 per hr. 60 (Boat,Thew, Steam Boiler) Crane Men 2 .271/2 per hr. 60 (Thew, Browning) Crane Man 1 .25 per hr. 60 (No. 114 Mix- er Crane) Car Greaser 1 .20 per hr. 70 That this wage scale has been sufficient to procure all of the labor required in this department and to attract a large number of applications in excess of the company's requirements, and the wages paid are as high as are paid in Indianapolis for the same de- gree of service and are fair, reasonable and just, (h) And generally as to the whole of said grievance No. 4, your respondent says that it declines to accede to the demands made in said grievance or to increase the rate of wage to be paid in any of said employ- ments or departments of employment, and contends that it cannot be required as the result of a strike or by means of arbitration to pay a higher wage rate than is necessary to procure the labor required in its business in the market in which it gets its labor, and that any and all attempts through the medium of strikes, resorts to rioting, lawlessness and the appli- cation of force to the employes of this company and those desiring to seek employment from it to arbi- trarily increase the price of labor and thereby compel this company to pay an artificial wage greater thiv\ is necessary to procure its labor in the open market are unlawful and deprive your respondent of the equal protection of the laws, in violation of the guaran- tees contained in the constitution of the United States, and should not receive recognition from this board of arbitration in making its award. Fifth : Your employes submit as a grievance that there are attached additional trips to the service of motormen and conductors to Sunday and Holiday schedules ; that all runs working less time on Sundays and Holidays than the 126 time called for on week day seliedules is not paid week day schedule time; that men do not have reasonable time of not less than twenty minutes nor more than forty minutes within which to eat meals and where cars are blocked or late no provision is made for men to eat, and it is not the duty of dispatchers, local superintendents, road masters and starters to see that such a provision exists and is not carried out at all times. 5. As to the fifth grievance: (a) Your respondent says that there is no foundation in fact for said fifth grievance. That regular motor- men and conductors do not have additional trips ad- ded to their runs for the Sunday or Holiday schedules. That extra men are employed to take care of the ex- tra work due to Sunday and Holiday schedules. Your respondent further says that a reasonable time of not less than twenty minutes is and has been at all times allowed to motormen and conductors within which to eat their meals and that the company does pay and has been paying for the time so occu- pied. That it is not practicable that it should be made the duty of dispatchers, local superintendents, road mas- ters or starters to see that the men have provision made for meal time when the cars are blocked or late for under such circumstances the proper dis- charge of the duty of this company to the public, re- quires that such dispatchers and other officials shall give their attention to the movement of cars and res- toration of traffic to its normal schedules. And your respondent declines to accede to the de- mands that runs working less time on Sundays and Holidays than the time called for on week day sched- ules shall be paid according to week day schedule time. Sixth : Your employes submit as a grievance that provi- sions and a condition of employment does not exist to provide that reporting time shall be but five minutes at all car houses, that motormen and conductors, missing their regular runs shall serve but two days on the extra list; 127 that where ears are delayed by accidents or blockades so that men riding upon them cannot reach their place of reporting on time, no miss shall be charged against them and that they shall loose their run for that day only and then only in the event that they reach the place for re- porting not in time to take their run out on schedule. 6. As to the sixth grievance : (a) Your respondent is willing to experiment with the requirements that men shall only be required to report five minutes before taking their runs at the car houses. It is the universal custom in all well regu- lated street railways to require men to report ten minutes before time for taking their runs in order that the barn foreman may reassign the work where men fail to report, without disturbing the schedules If experience shows tliat it is practicable to require the men to report five minutes before taking their runs, your respondent is willing to make that rule permanent; otherwise reserves the right to change the present system. Your respondent declines to accede to a hard and fast rule that two days only on the extra list shall be the penalty for missing the runs, but reserves the right to govern the penalty according to the character of the offense and reason which may exist for having failed to report in time to take out any particular run. Your respondent accedes to the proposition that men who are delayed without their fault by reason of blockades on the line, and thereby prevented from taking out their runs shall not be penalized further than to lose their run for that day only. This is and has been the custom at all times in the carrying on of the respondent's business, and no foundation exists for grievance in this respect. Seventh : The employes file as a grievance that a condi- tion of employment does not exist to provide that the working board for the following day shall be marked up not later than four o'clock P. M., each day; a list of extra men shall be made up at the same time and so placed that it shall be in plain sight at all times, that extra men 128 can see their standing for work and when an extra man gets out on a run he shall he checked on the list accord- ingly, or if he misses he shall be so marked. 7. As to the seventh grievance : (a) Your respondent says that there is no foundation for said seventh, grievance; that the company main- tains a working board ; that wherever practicable it is marked up by the middle of the afternoon; that the list of extra men is made and placed in plain sight so that extra men can see their standing for work, and that they are marked when they get a run or miss. Eighth: Your employes submit as a grievance that a condition of employment does not exist to provide thai there shall be placed in the office of each car house of the respective lines an open book in which the men can reg- ister the particular day or days on which they want to get off, the men so registered shall have first preference except in case of committees or officers who mark off on business of the Employes Association, such committee and officers in such case to have preference; persons so reg istering must sign in ink or otherwise loose their turn ; said book to be dated to provide a privilege of asking off seven days ahead of any day leave of absence is desired ; that collectors of dues of the Employes Association, if they so desire, shall be marked off pay days by the dispatcher. 8. As to the eighth grievance: (a) Your respondent says that there is no foundation^ in fact for said eighth grievance. That the station fore- man in the company's various bams keeps a record of the men who ask off and of the day or days upon which they wish to get off. That it is not practicable that employes desiring to get off shall be required to register in ink, for in many cases of sickness or other like reason such requests are made and must be made without the actual presence of the employe at the bam. 129 That it is not practicable to require men to ask off seven days in advance. Your respondent declines to accede to the demand that a class of employes shall have a preferiiuce in being excused from work, but says that it is necessary, in order to maintain the service, that the barn fore- man should have a reasonable discretion in excusing or refusing to excuse men from work on any partic- ular day. Ninth: Your employes submit as a grievance that a condition of employment does not exist in agreement by and between the Employes Association and the employing Company which provides that any employe elected or ap- pointed to any office in the Employes Association shall upon his retirement from said association office, be re- instated in his former position without impairment of seniority rights in the employment of the Company. 9. As to the ninth grievance: (a) Your respondent objects to any consideration of the ninth grievance, upon the ground (1) that it is not within the terms of the contract of November 7, 1913, and (2) that it is not within the jurisdiction of the commission under said contract of November 7, 1913. (b) Your respondent dclines to accede to the said ninth grievance upon the ground that the said con- tract of November 7, 1913, together with the decision of this commission upon this arbitration settles all matters of condition of employment for a period of three years, and that this respondent cannot be re- quired to enter into any contract with anybody other than said contract of November 7, 1913. (c) Your respondent declines to accede to said grievance for the reason that it objects to any arrangement which will under any circumstances limit its man- aging officers in connection with the employment or the reinstatement of any class of employes. Tenth : The employes submit as a grievance that a con- dition of employment does not exist between the Company 130 and the Employes Association as a matter of agreement that all cars shall be properly cleaned and equipped by barn men before being placed in charge of motormen and con- ductors, and that said condition of employment shall apply to car stoves. 10. As to the tenth grievance : (a) Your respondent states that there is no founda- tion in fact for said grievance. That all cars are and have been at all times cleaned and equipped by barn men before being placed in charge of motormen and conductors, and that this fully applies to the car stoves, and car service men are not and have not been required to do any of that work. Eleventh : Your employes file as a grievance that extra men reporting at regular reporting time and receiving no work are not paid less than $1.50 and that such extra men are not permitted to complete their report between 4:45 o'clock A. M., and 5 o'clock P. M., with meal time allowed; that there exists no condition of agreement to provide that the extra board at the several barns shall be a revolving list marked up to provide that the first man in shall be the first man out and that extra men working after twelve o'clock, midnight, shall not be required to report before 9 A. M., the following day, and be entitled to $1.50 per day in case of days upon which reports are made at 9 A. M. in the event that no work is performed that day; that men missing the extra list shall be dealt with by the Station Master under discipline not to receive loss of place on the extra list for the day of miss only. 11. As to the eleventh grievance: (a) Your respondent is not willing to accede to the demand that every extra man shall be paid not less than one and one-half dollars for each and every day Avhen he receives no work. Your respondent states that there is no foundation in fact for this grievance, for the reason that extra men average as much throughout the month as the minimum wage demand- ed. That there is no foundation in fact for the griev- 131 ance that extra men not receiving work are held longer than necessary in any one day ; that ordinarily they are excused by four o'clock in the afternoon. That there is no foundation for the grievance that the extra board does not provide that the first man in shall be the first man out, as this is and always has been the custom in carryng out the respondent's busi- ness. Your respondent concedes and is willing to put in- to practicable operation directions at its barns, where- by extra men working after twelve o'clock midnight, shall not be required to report before nine o'clock A. M., the following day. Your respondent declines to accede to any arrange- ments whereby the station master at any particular barn shall be limited in his discretion in imposing discipline upon men who miss the extra list, but con- tends that the station master must necessarily have the right to take the facts and circumstances into con- sideration in deciding what penalties should be im- posed for being absent without leave. Twelfth: The employes submit a grievance in that books of tickets or passes will not be issued to all employes permitting them free transportation as a condition of employment agreed upon by and between the Employes Association and the Company, such free transportation to prevail on all lines owned or operated by the Company. 12. As to the twelfth grievance: (a) Your respondent shows that it is and has been the custom for a long time on its lines to issue to its em- ployes free employe's tickets, entitling them to ride from their homes to their work and from their work to their homes, but further than this such free trans- portation has never been the custom in Indianapolis. That in the practical operation of this custom grave abuses have always existed and do now exist in Indian- apolis on account of the manner in which such em- ploye's tickets are transferred, held back, used by other persons and otherwise misapplied. 132 Thirteenth : The employes submit a grievance in that a condition of employment does not exist to provide that men holding their seniority as conductors shall not be re- quired to work as motormen, and vice versa, unless they so desire. 13. As to the thirteenth grievance : (a) Your respondent says that there is no foundation in fact for said grievance. That, except in cases of emergency, conductors are not required to work as motormen and motormen are not required to work as conductors, but your respondent further shows that an invariable rule in this respect would at times im- pair the service. Fourteenth : Your employes submit a grievance in that there does not exist a condition of employment by which is provided an agreement between the association of em- ployes and the employing company to provide that all em- ployes who are now members of the association shall remain members in good standing during their term of service in the employ of the Company and that men enter- ing the service of the employing Company shall within thirty days, if proven satisfactory to both the Employes Association and the Company, become members and re- main members of the association so long as they continue in the service of the Company or any other Company suc- ceeding in the operation of the lines now owned and operated by the recognized operating company in the em- ployment of which are the employes here represented; and that this provision contained in this paragraph shall apply to all motormen and conductors operating into and within Indianapolis, and employes in and connected with all departments of the operation and maintenance of Street and Electric Railway Service into and within Indian- apolis. 14. As to the fourteenth grievance: (a) Your respondent objects to the consideration of this grievance for the reason (1) that it is not with- in the scope of the contract of November 7, 1913, and 133 (2) it is not within the jurisdiction of the arbitrators under said contract of November 7, 1913. (b) Your respondent declines to accede to said four- teenth grievance upon the ground that the said con- tract of November 7, 1913, together with the decision of this board of arbitration constitutes an adjudica- tion of all matters arising within the next three years, and that the jurisdiction of this board does not ex- tend beyond three years, and that this resplendent cannot be required to enter into any contract, and especially a contract which would impair the force and validity of said contract of November 7, 1913, or the decision of this Board of Arbitration. (c) Your respondent declines to accede to said fourteenth grievance upon the further ground that it would impair the efficiency of the service; that it wo(dd take away from your respondent the freedom of action to which it is entitled under the law, and would limit the scope to which it might impose discipline and that such a contract is against public policy. Fifteenth: Your employes submit as a grievance that men required to report at reporting points before be- ginning work and are compelled to go to another point to take their cars shall be paid not for the time required to go and come at the regular rate of wages and where men are relieved at Terminals and required to return to stations to make reports and deposit receipts are not paid for such time and where shop or barn men are required to work at points other than the barn or shop where they are reg- ularly employed are not paid for time going to and from their respective barns or shops and the point of employ- ment. 15. As to the fifteenth grievance: (a) Your respondent accedes and is willing to put in effect a change in its payment of wage scales v»'h^reby conductors who are relieved from their cars take their cars at points other than their barns shall be paid for the time necessarily required in transportation from the barn to the place of taking or leaving the car, as 134 the case may be, computed to the nearest five minutes. As to barn and shop men, your respondent answers that there is no foundation for the grievance, as in all cases they are paid from the time they leave or ar- rive at the barn or shop and such has been the custom on the part of this respondent for a long time. Sixteenth: The employes submit as a grievance that motormen and conductors are not paid twenty-five cents extra per day while instructing students. 16, As to the sixteenth grievance : (a) Your respondent declines to accede to the demand that extra wages shall be paid motormen or con- ductors while instructing students. Sev^enteenth : Your employes here file as a grievance that preference for snow-plow and sweeper work is not given to motormen and conductors and such work is not paid at the rate of double time; that men held or called for snow plow or sweeper work and receiving no work are not paid for the time from the time so called until relieved and when men are taken from their regular work for this service they receive less than their regular service day pays and returned to their regular work that day; that meals are not allowed all men doing this class of work, such meals at the expense of the Company. 17. As to the seventeenth grievance: (a) Your respondent says that there is no foundation in fact for the grievance as to working conditions specified. Motormen and conductors are in all cases employed for snow plow and sweeper work. Such employes, when completing this work in less time than is employed in their regular service, do and have re- ceived full pay for the number of hours composing their regular runs for that day. The time for meals is allowed at the expense of the company, and the meals are furnished by the company. The respondent declines to accede to the demand that double pay should be allowed for snow plow or 135 sweeper work, but that allowing time for the regular run of the employe for that day is equitable, and that in nearly all cases the work of a snow plow or sweeper is completed in much less time than is occupied by his regular run. Eighteenth : Your employes submit as a grievance that a condition of employment does not exist as a condition of agreement between the employing Company and the Employes Association providing that the superintendent shall on notice, Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays of each week at ten o'clock A. M. give a fair and impartial hearing to suspended or discharged employes and in case cause for dismissal is found to be insufficient to warrant dismissal and cause for suspension is found to be insuf- ficient to warrant suspension, such employes shall be re- instated and paid for time lost at his regular rate of wages. 18. As to the eighteenth grievance : (a) The respondent says that there is no foundation in fact for this grievance, as the general superintendent is and has been in the habit, and it is his custom at his office on every day in the week, to meet with sus- pended or otherwise disciplined employes and to give them a fair and impartial hearing, and to deal with their cases according to their merits. Nineteenth : Your employes file as a grievance that a condition of employment does not exist as a matter of agreement between the Company and the Employes As- sociation to provide that the president, at ten o'clock A. M. on the first and third Tuesdays of each month will hear individual cases of grievance appealed from the decision of the general superintendent; a memorandum of such cases and testimony bearing thereon must be submitted in the forenoon of the preceding Saturday and the request of either party, the Company or Association, the individual or individuals involved, will be notified to appear at ihe hearing in person ; that records kept by the company for the violation of rules and record of the defense and offense shall be made a matter of record available in all cases. 136 19. As to the nineteenth grievance : (a) Your respondent says that there is no foundation in fact for this grievance. That by orders and direc- tions of the president, issued in 1901, the employes have at all times had the right to appeal to the president from the decision of the general superin- tendent, and to be heard in person at the office of the president. That it is impractical that the president should have a fixed engagement for the hearing of such ap- peals, or that there should be any fixed method of sub- mitting the facts relative to such appeals. That the company does keep and has for a long time kept a record of the violation of rules and tres- pass of its employes, and the character of the dis- cipline imposed in each particular case. Twentieth : The employes submit a grievance in that all motormen and conductors are not listed respectively as motormen and conductors in accordance with their seniority of service at the car house where they report and that no condition of employment exists to provide that where a barn or parts of barn are consolidated with another, the men affected shall be consolidated and hold their seniority rights accordingly. 20. As to the twentieth grievance : (a) Your respondent says there is no foundation in fact for this grievance. That the seniority of the records of motormen and conductors are kept at the car houses where they report, and that they are listed according to such seniority, and that there are no barns or parts' of barns consolidated or about to be consolidated or which have recently consolidated. Twenty-first : Your employes submit as a grievance that in the assignment of runs motormen and conductors do not have the privilege of choosing or picking runs in ac- cordance with seniority in service as based upon contin- uous service at the car house where they report; that officials at the various barns are not required to place a 137 list showing the run numbers and hours and minutes each run works, such list not being so placed four days ahead of the third month, starting from December 1, 1913, such list not containing route numbers for which runs are scheduled; also that a list of names is not placed in crews, rooms starting with the oldest man in service in rotation through the entire list, such lists are not being posted one day before choos- ing of runs begins; and it is not provided that early straight men are entitled to choose runs between the hours of two o'clock P. M., and six o'clock P. M., on the second day after list is posted, and late straight men are not en- titled to choose between the hours of eleven and three P. M., on the third day and the balance are not permitted to choose runs on the fourth day between the hours of nine A. M. and two o'clock P. M. ; and that there is no provision that each man when choosing his run shall check his name from the list and then a failing to sign within the specified time the superintendent shall be empowered to assign them to the best run open; and that in case a run becomes vacant there is no condition of employment which provides that the first extra shall take the run and hold it until the list is changed at the end of the three months period with- in which such vacancy occurs; and where a regular man is off through sickness or otherwise, his run is to be filled by an extra man taking the run for three days at the end of which time the run shall be open for allottment to the man of the extra list upon a system of three days limit for each extra in order. 21. As to the twenty-first grievance : (a) Your respondent shows that there is no foundation in fact for said twenty-first grievance. That the seniority in service at the car house where the men re- port does govern their actual seniority. That it has not been the custom to throw open the runs for pick- ing and choosing on account of the demand of the men themselves that they did not desire it to be done in this way. But your respondent further says that if it is the desire of the majority of the men that the runs should be thrown open twice a year for picking and choosing, 138 your respondent is willing to do so, and will, unless a majority of the men protest within a period of ten days after the filing of this answer, make it the rule and custom to throw open the runs for picking and choosing twice a year, and provide for suitable times for the men to choose the runs they desire. Your respondent says that it is not fair or just in the event a run becomes vacant for the first extra man to take that run and hold it until the end of the period. But such run should be available to the next regular man who is thus entitled to an advance in seniority. Further, that it is not practicable that when a regular man is off his run, his run to be filled by an extra man for three days, but only that the run should be filled by extra men during the time that the regular man is off and that said extra men should rotate according to their seniority in securing that run on the various days that the regular man is off. This is and has been the custom in the management of this company's business and no foundation exists for this grievance. Twenty-second: The employes submit as a grievance that no condition of employment exists by agreement be- tween the Employes Association and the employing Com- pany to provide that any matters of future dispute that cannot be satisfactorily adjusted between the partii-s to the agreement shall be submitted to a temporary board of arbitration; either party to the agreement upon notifica- tion in writing from the other party that arbitration is desired shall name its arbitrator within forty-eight hourvj from the date of receiving such notice, such notice to be addressed to the representative of the Company and the Committee of the Employes Association and the delivery of such notice shall be sufficient notification providing delivery is made at the place of business of either party to warrant that arbitration is desired; that the Board of Arbitration shall be composed of three persons, the C )m pany to select one, the employes to select one, and the two thus selected shall select a third; that arbitrators io constitute the Board of Arbitration shall be selected with- out unreasonable delay; that at the hearing of the afore- 139 said arbitration, either side shall be represented by repre- sentatives of their respective choice, and after all evidence and arguments have been heard by the Board of Arbitra- tion an award shall be formulated in writng and sub- mitted to the respective parties within fifteen days; the finding of the majority of the said board shall be final and binding upon the parties to the agreement; the expense of the Board of Arbitration shall be borne by each party paying the arbitrator of its selection and by both parties jointly and equally paying the expense of the third arbi- trator and such other expense of the arbitration incurred at the instance or direction of the Arbitration Board. 22. As to the twenty-second grievance : (a) Your respondent objects to any consideration of said twenty-second grievance, for the reason (1) that it is not within the scope of the contract of November 7, 1913, and (2) that it is not within the jurisdiction of the arbitrators under said contract of November 7, 1913. (b) Your respondent declines to accede to said twenty- second grievance for the reason that said contract of November 7, 1913, together with the report of this Board of Arbitration settles all grievances and dis- putes for a period of three years, and this board has no jurisdiction for a period beyond three years, and this respondent cannot be required to enter into a con- tract which would extend beyond a period of three years or which would invalidate said contract of November 7, 1913, or the award of the Board of Arbitration thereunder. Twenty-third: Your employes file as a grievance that there exists no agreement between the Employes Associa- tion and the employing Company as a condition of employ- ment to provide to continue for a period of time to be agreed upon by agreement and that no condition of em- ployment exists by which an agreement is provided in which changes in an agreement may be made or defining the period of agreement or providing for the submission of any dispute relative to changes in agreement may be 140 ^ made to Board of Arbitration, and that no agreement ex- ists between the Company and the Employes Association, providing to designate the association as representative of the employes in the determination upon future grievances. 23. As to the twenty-third grievance: ' (a) Your respondent objects to any consideration of said twenty-third grievance, for the reason (1) that it is not within the scope of the contract of November 7, 1913, and (2) that it is not within the jurisdiction of the arbitrators under said contract of November 7, 1913. (b) Your respondent declines to accede to said twenty- third grievance for the reason that said' contract of November 7, 1913, together with the report of this Board of Arbitration settles all grievances and dis- putes for a period of three years, and this board has no jurisdiction for a preiod beyond three years, and this respondent cannot be required to enter into a con- tract which would extend beyond a period of three years or which would invalidate said con,tract of November 7, 1913, or the award of the Board of AHn'trntion thereunder. 141 The following employes testified for the Committee. These are the wage earnings of each since June 1, with a short resume of his evidence. Hours of Time and Wages of Frederick Sellers Track Department and Oar Service Department, as Motor- man at 25c Per Hour. Badge No. 85. June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Date Hrs Min Hrs Min Hrs Min Hrs Min Hrs Min Hrs Min 1 12 12 12 2 12 11 12 11 11 3 11 11 11 12 4 11 15 11 11 5 11 11 12 11 ' 6 12 7 11 11 7 12 11 12 11 11 8 10 12 11 12 12 9 11 12 12 12 12 10 12 11 11 12 11 . 12 11 12 11 12 11 39 12 12 12 12 12 11 11 39 13 12 11 11 11 12 11 39 14 12 12 11 9 11 11 39 15 10 11 11 11 11 10 55 16 12 19 11 20 11 17 17 11 11 11 11 39 18 11 12 11 12 11 11 39 19 12 11 12 12 20 11 11 12 11 21 12 12 11 12 11 39 22 21 11 11 9 10 55 23 11 11 12 11 11 24 11 12 12 12 11 39 25 11 12 11 11 12 11 39 26 12 12 11 12 9 11 39 27 11 12 12 11 11 39 28 11 11 11 11 11 39 29 10 23 12 12 12 10 55 30 12 11 11 11 19 11 31 31 12 11 11 Total Time 324 338 308 314 334 184 04 Total Wages Actually Paid 181 00 $84 00 177 00 |78 50 |83 50 |46 02 142 This man worked for track department during summer months and returned to car service department November 11th, 1913. Motorman 8 years; wife; 2 children; didn't quit Oct. 31; quit Nov. 1; didn't know of strike until Saturday morning; twice I have refused to work overtime; never presented any grievance; pay |10.00 rent; coal |7.75 to $10.25 a ton; grocery bill |6 to |7 a week; shoes |4.00 a pair. "I do not know any place I can earn as much as I do now." 143 OS OS ffd N N N eo rH t- N (M N eOiHt-^C^H M IM N r1 i-l iH O cq SXJOA\. 8mjX NrH MNe»NeqrHMeT'g anoH rn i-t ^ th X JO 90UT3A\01IV pasiaojVi 9Uiji a9AO IBtijoy p9JtaOAS. 8UI]i coeqso ih lo «o M e? ea im th eq cq eUBA\Onv eo p93iJOyVi auiii ^ J9AO IBn^DV p93lJO^^ 9lUtJ| ca T-( iM N so rH t-.e2 o a M® aA ^A (0 ^ I'nl ifl ■W "iH > 08 -o ?^s p ojn ^ .Ss y cd CO 4) .6^ 00 5 <^^ O 0)1 us > . t-' O (B **o O >, cd 0) 2 o nj 'O S- K C "H c o "^ g ttc EHoi:;ffit>lIl Cj 0) s bc-o 144 Hours of Time and Wages of James L. Hayden Car Service Department as Motorman at 25c Per Hour. Badge No. 639. Date 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Total Time 324 40 346 35 313 07 345 07 336 39 246 00 Total Actually Paid : |81 17 186 65 178 28 |86 28 |84 17 |61 50 June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Hrs Mln Hrs Min Hrs Min Hrs Min Hrs Min Hrs Min 12 30 11 55 11 59 12 30 11 08 11 55 11 59 7 00 11 08 11 55 11 55 12 30 11 59 11 08 12 50 11 59 11 59 11 08 11 55 11 59 11 59 11 59 11 17 11 55 12 30 11 59 11 59 11 08 11 55 11 59 11 59 12 30 11 08 12 30 11 59 11 59 11 59 11 08 10 50 11 55 11 59 11 59 11 59 11 08 11 04 11 55 11 46 12 30 11 59 11 08 11 20 11 55 11 14 11 59 11 59 11 08 11 20 11 55 10 53 11 59 11 59 11 17 11 20 11 55 11 15 11 59 11 59 11 08 11 20 11 55 11 59 12 30 11 08 11 20 12 30 11 59 11 59 11 59 12 23 10 50 11 55 11 59 11 59 11 59 11 08 11 04 11 59 11 59 11 08 11 20 11 55 11 59 11 59 11 59 11 08 11 20 11 55 11 59 11 59 11 17 11 20 11 55 12 30 11 59 11 59 11 55 11 59 11 59 12 30 11 08 11 20 12 30 11 59 11 59 11 59 11 08 10 50 11 55 11 59 11 59 11 08 11 04 11 55 11 59 11 59 11 08 11 20 11 55 11 59 11 59 11 08 11 20 11 55 11 59 11 59 11 17 11 20 11 55 12 30 11 59 11 59 11 08 11 04 11 55 11 59 12 30 11 20 11 20 12 30 11 59 11 59 11 59 11 20 10 50 11 55 11 59 11 59 11 59 11 20 11 04 11 59 12 30 11 20 145 Motorman eight years; wife and four children; rent $12.00; groceries |8-|10 a week. "I made one complaint in the 8 years. Used to be a fireman on the railroad. Made |80 to $105 a month. Wife was not satisfied because I was away from home so much. I didn't join before the strike. I didn't know the strike was called until the next morn- ing." 146 Hours of Time and Wages of M. McCarty, Car Service Department as Conductor at 25c Per Hour. Badge No. 440. June July Aug-. Sept. Oct. Nov. Date Hrs Min Hrs Min Hrs Min Hrs Min Hrs Min Hrs Min 1 11 55 11 54 11 54 11 55 11 54 2 11 54 11 54 11 54 11 54 11 54 3 11 54 11 55 11 54 11 54 4 11 55 11 54 2 58 11 54 5 11 54 11 54 11 54 11 54 11 55 6 11 54 11 55 11 54 11 54 11 54 7 11 54 11 54 11 54 11 55 11 54 8 11 55 11 54 12 24 11 54 11 54 9 11 54 11 54 11 54 11 54 11 54 11 55 10 11 54 11 54 11 55 11 54 11 54 11 54 11 11 54 11 54 11 54 11 54 11 54 11 54 12 11 54 11 54 11 54 11 54 11 55 11 54 13 11 54 11 55 11 54 11 54 11 54 11 54 14 11 54 11 54 3 39 11 55 11 54 11 54 15 11 55 11 54 11 54 11 54 11 54 11 54 16 11 54 11 54 11 54 11 54 11 55 17 11 54 11 54 11 55 11 54 11 54 18 11 54 12 24 11 54 11 54 11 54 11 54 19 11 54 11 54 11 54 11 55 11 54 20 11 54 11 55 11 54 11 54 11 54 11 54 21 11 54 11 54 11 54 11 55 11 54 22 11 55 14 24 11 54 11 54 11 54 11 54 23 11 54 11 54 11 54 11 54 11 54 11 55 24 11 54 11 54 11 55 11 54 11 54 11 54 25 11 54 11 54 11 54 11 54 11 54 11 21 26 11 54 11 54 11 54 11 55 27 11 54 11 54 11 54 11 54 11 55 28 13 24 11 54 11 54 11 55 11 54 11 54 29 11 55 11 54 11 54 11 54 2 13 11 54 30 11 54 11 54 11 54 11 54 11 55 31 11 54 11 55 11 54 Total Time 346 41 324 22 349 20 324 21 357 23 249 26 Total Actually Paid : $86 68 $81 11 187 35 |81 10 |89 36 $62 37 147 Conductor 23 years ; wife and 7 children ; hours 11 :54 — The hours are too long. "Ten or eleven hours are enough. I have had some grievances satisfactorily adjusted — others not. (Ticket matter) , I have accumulated property worth |4,500 to 15,000. I began at 14c ; now get 25c. I have the run I want. I would like to have one day in seven. They always listened to my complaints — were always courteous to me. I found out about the strike about midnight when my boy came home. 148 Hours of Time and Wages of Glen Thompson, Car Service Department as Motorman, at Rate of 20c Per Hour. Badge No. 299. June July Aug. SepL Oct Nov. Date Hrs Min Hrs Min Hrs Min Hrs Min Hrs Min Hrs Min 1 10 11 10 11 5 14 11 01 2 10 12 12 10 10 22 10 12 3 5 59 11 17 10 12 1 42 4 11 31 4 51 10 11 11 59 5 8 12 11 20 11 50 10 50 6 7 30 9 41 12 39 4 21 7 11 08 11 30 6 22 11 14 8 7 50 11 33 14 25 6 56 13 43 9 9 09 2 31 15 47 10 32 10 10 11 4 25 9 13 10 12 10 00 11 9 02 17 01 6 24 12 14 33 5 25 10 26 10 21 11 14 13 2 25 10 17 13 58 8 57 9 27 14 10 11 10 29 10 14 11 00 2 59 15 10 22 11 30 12 17 11 11 16 5 27 5 21 12 23 11 20 10 58 17 8 54 10 03 4 22 10 11 18 11 14 10 54 9 29 10 20 3 30 19 13 28 5 23 10 58 4 22 20 8 26 11 22 10 10 10 51 9 59 21 11 01 5 20 11 48 9 33 22 7 02 10 22 1 48 11 20 10 22 23 9 10 9 49 5 20 10 26 7 32 24 1 42 10 10 9 54 10 00 4 22 9 52 25 9 31 7 20 8 11 2 19 10 42 11 59 26 12 15 7 04 11 59 11 08 9 22 10 00 27 11 06 11 15 • 9 46 7 00 11 36 28 12 50 10 22 10 02 3 21 10 51 29 11 02 10 25 11 13 9 40 5 27 2 31 30 4 57 7 16 4 53 12 32 11 35 31 12 19 11 48 11 05 Total Time 58 26 254 16 283 39 284 37 259 09 193 35 Total Wages Actually Paid : 111 69 $50 86 $56 73 $56 93 $51 83 $38 72 149 Age 21, April, 1913; motorman, extra man. Rate 20c. "I make |8.00 to |14.00 a week. I joined the union before the strike. I signed a withdrawal, but not of my free will. Did it to hold my job . I deceived Mr. Mahoney to hold my job." Worked Union Station, I7I/2C ; Atlantic City, 17^c ; Pittsburg, liy^c; Big Four bridge gang, 17^c 150 Hours of Time and Wages of Newton B. Hiles, Date 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Total Time 276 50 223 50 276 47 266 36 274 00 201 58 At rate of 22c : 160 90 |49 24 f44 75 At rate of 23e : |16 89 $61 33 $63 02 $46 46 Total Wages Actually Paid: 90 $49 24 $61 64 $61 33 $63 02 $46 46 Service Department. Badge No. 671. June July Aug-. Sept Oct. Nov. Hrs Min Hrs Min Hrs Min Hrs Min Hrs Min Hrs Min 8 45 9 10 9 10 4 07 10 57 10 04 9 10 9 10 9 10 10 57 10 04 12 25 9 22 9 10 10 57 10 04 9 22 9 10 9 10 10 57 10 04 9 10 9 10 9 10 11 01 10 04 9 10 9 10 3 36 9 04 13 06 10 57 10 57 9 10 9 10 9 52 9 10 10 04 9 10 9 10 4 59 9 10 10 58 10 04 9 10 9 22 10 00 10 27 9 28 10 04 9 10 18 54 10 15 9 28 10 04 9 10 9 10 11 14 10 58 9 28 12 24 9 10 11 34 10 27 9 28 9 04 9 10 10 26 10 09 10 27 9 28 9 22 9 10 9 10 10 15 10 27 10 15 9 10 9 10 9 10 10 27 5 50 9 10 14 08 3 35 10 15 10 27 2 59 9 10 9 10 11 22 10 15 10 15 10 27 9 10 9 10 13 49 10 15 9 10 9 22 13 10 10 15 10 27 9 29 9 10 9 10 9 10 9 22 10 27 10 27 9 22 9 10 9 10 9 10 10 27 10 15 2 43 9 10 10 27 10 58 9 10 9 30 9 10 10 55 9 28 8 22 9 45 3 32 10 27 13 31 9 10 9 10 10 27 9 10 4 15 9 10 9 10 4 32 10 58 9 10 9 10 14 48 11 01 10 27 9 22 9 10 10 57 10 27 10 15 9 10 9 10 9 10 10 57 10 27 10 58 9 25 3 05 10 27 151 This man's rate increased from 22c per hour to 23c per hour August 23, 1913. Age 24; motorman; employed 3 years; wife and baby. "I joined the union. Mr Mahoney told me I was in bad company. I told him I didn't belong, but I did. I went on strike. Worked at Cincinnati at 20c ; worked in butcher shop at |8.00 a week. Worked as a pol- isher at Keyless Lock Co., but didn't make as much as I am making now." 152 Hours of Time and Wages of A I. MeCray, Car Service Department, as Conductor, at 23c Per Hour. Badge No. 270. Date 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Total Time 185 37 276 29 234 21 278 21 230 19 82 36 Total Actually Paid: |42 70 163 60 |53 91 |64 03 |52 98 |19 01 June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Hrs Min Hrs Min Hrs Min Hrs Min Hrs Min Hrs Min 11 09 9 24 9 24 11 09 9 24 9 24 9 24 10 17 9 24 9 24 9 24 9 24 11 09 9 24 9 24 11 09 9 24 9 24 10 17 10 17 9 24 9 24 11 09 11 09 9 24 10 17 9 24 9 24 11 09 9 24 9 24 9 24 9 24 10 23 12 09 10 17 9 24 8 40 9 24 11 09 11 12 9 24 11 12 9 24 10 23 10 17 9 24 11 09 9 24 10 17 10 23 11 09 10 23 10 28 10 23 9 24 9 24 9 24 10 23 9 24 9 24 10 53 5 51 9 24 9 24 11 25 9 24 10 05 9 24 10 17 11 25 9 24 11 09 9 24 11 09 11 25 10 17 10 23 10 17 9 24 11 09 10 23 11 09 9 24 11 25 9 24 10 23 9 24 9 24 10 55 9 24 10 23 9 24 9 24 10 53 10 23 9 24 9 24 11 25 9 24 10 23 11 17 9 24 10 17 11 25 9 24 11 09 9 25 9 24 11 09 3 01 10 17 11 09 10 17 9 24 9 24 11 09 9 25 11 09 9 24 9 24 9 24 9 25 9 24 9 9 24 24 10 17 9 24 11 09 153 Conductor ; this time 3 years ; in all 8 years. "I get |15.18 a week for seven days. Pay |10 rent ; grocery, |6 a week. I can hardly live. Wife sews to buy her own clothes. Before strike I complained ; it was five years ago ; bridge was out. Mahoney said we ought to be satisfied. In a few days they had a temporary vestibule and Mr. Mahoney told me to go to work. Lately I went to him about my wife and Mr. Padgett. Called up about union. 'It's up to you — spit her out.' He told me to go to work, at which I was surprised. This is the fifth time I have worked for the Company. I have no complaint to make of the inspectors. I think their reports are honestly made. I learned of the strike the morning after. Joined Oct. 2. I wouldn't work with a non- union man — even if this board orders it. ( Retracted this. ) 154 Hours of Time and Wages of J. W. Miller, Car Service Department, as Motorman at 24 cents per hour. Badge No. 483. Date 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 June July Aug. Sept. Oct Nov. Hrs Min Hrs Min Hrs Min Hrs Min Hrs Min Hrs Min 11 00 10 53 10 20 10 38 10 13 10 38 10 53 12 10 10 20 10 38 11 15 10 20 10 38 10 53 10 20 11 15 10 20 10 13 10 46 10 53 13 45 12 10 11 00 10 20 10 13 10 20 13 00 10 38 4 25 13 10 10 38 15 15 10 38 10 20 10 38 10 20 10 46 10 20 11 15 10 20 10 53 5 42 3 41 12 10 10 53 10 20 14 35 10 53 14 39 10 53 10 20 10 20 10 53 10 13 10 53 11 13 12 10 10 53 11 13 10 20 1 23 11 13 10 20 10 53 12 10 10 20 10 03 10 20 10 20 11 15 10 20 10 20 10 53 10 20 10 13 10 34 7 55 Total Time 264 10 153 25 283 03 115 28 Total Actually Paid. $63 40 $36 82 $67 94 $27 71 155 (Discharged September 17, 1913.) Wife and 4 children. Worked 4i/^ years. Joined union in October. In October I talked to Mr. Mahoney. He wanted to know if I had joined, I said no. TMrly-fourth and Illinois Charles Long and 25 more chased me. Jerked me off the car. Was arrested after leaving the stand for carrying weapons. (Affair about the red tickets.) 156 Hours of Time and Wages of Eobert A. McDaniel, Car Service Department, as Motorman. Badge No. 197. Jurne July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dat« Hrs Mln Hrs Min Hrs Min Hrs Min Hrs Min Hrs Min 1 9 36 7 53 9 33 2 14 2 7 05 7 53 10 00 10 00 10 00 3 7 05 7 53 9 01 10 00 10 00 4 11 05 12 33 10 00 10 00 9 34 5 10 08 10 00 5 18 6 7 05 12 33 10 00 9 34 10 00 7 10 10 7 53 10 00 9 33 10 00 8 7 17 9 37 10 00 10 00 10 00 1 40 9 7 05 3 30 10 00 10 00 10 7 05 9 00 17 32 10 00 11 7 05 2 40 16 34 12 7 05 10 00 12 24 10 00 13 7 05 10 00 9 34 10 00 10 00 14 10 10 4 52 10 00 10 00 10 00 15 9 26 9 01 10 00 10 00 9 34 16 7 05 9 01 10 00 10 00 17 7 05 9 01 10 00 10 00 18 7 53 4 13 9 34 10 00 19 7 53 9 02 10 00 10 00 20 4 02 10 00 10 00 10 00 21 9 51 10 00 10 00 10 00 22 9 51 10 00 10 00 9 34 23 10 00 1 10 10 00 24 10 00 9 26 10 00 10 00 25 1 42 4 31 10 00 10 00 9 34 10 00 26 11 42 10 00 10 00 10 00 10 00 27 7 53 9 17 10 00 9 34 10 00 9 33 28 10 08 10 00 10 00 3 20 10 00 10 00 29 12 33 10 00 10 00 10 00 9 34 30 7 53 5 40 9 34 10 00 2 14 9 33 31 9 33 Total Honrs 196 11 214 45 253 54 192 56 223 10 169 28 RateprHr. 20c 20c 20c 20c 20c 20c Total Wages Paid $41 20 |45 10 |53 32 $40 52 $46 87 ^35 60 157 Li, . k Age, 32. Wife and 3 children. Began work May, 1913. "I work 18^ hours and get 10 hours' pay. I have not been able to save. Went with Kinder to see Mr. Todd. I joined. Before jyeople treated us like dogs. On my wages I can't comfortably clothe and, keep my children. Worked in gro- cery at Waldron, |10.00 a week, board, room. Farm near Eushville, $25.00 a month. I knew if I quit I might have trouble to get a job." 158 Hours of Time and Wages of Earl Galvin, Car Service Department, as Motor: lan. Badge No. 729. Jun« July Augr. Bept Oct. Nov. Date Hrs Min Hrs Min Hrs Min Hrs Min Hrs Min Hrs Min 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 11 12 13 14 10 11 15 12 36 16 9 34 17 11 22 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Total Hours Worked : 43 43 At 20c per Hour: |8 75 159 This man was employed October 22, 1913, reiwrted for work November 14 and was discharged November 18, 1913. Age, 25. Extra. Louisiana barn. "I have never missed a run when I reported. I've only reported 4 days. Dis- charged for having a collision." Employed since strike. 160 Hours of Time and Wages of Thomas B. Stearns, Car Service Department, as Motorman. Badge No. 423. Jun« July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Date Hrs Min Hrs Min Hrs Min Hrs Min Hrs Min Hrs Min 1 3 18 9 41 10 40 2 9 42 12 41 3 6 10 12 50 4 17 15 10 12 10 12 5 9 51 6 44 9 33 6 10 58 10 12 10 51 7 9 27 10 53 2 24 10 32 8 9 27 11 44 10 22 9 40 10 53 9 3 38 14 57 16 51 11 06 9 11 10 2 38 8 40 10 27 11 10 48 10 10 17 28 10 49 12 10 09 11 53 6 40 13 12 13 10 02 10 34 11 14 10 26 14 6 22 11 14 10 23 10 12 15 11 27 9 40 9 40 10 03 13 34 16 10 53 6 11 1 42 11 24 11 36 17 9 17 9 29 4 22 13 31 18 6 30 11 20 11 14 4 22 19 11 22 10 29 11 14 9 33 20 9 08 8 40 13 49 6 27 10 21 10 53 21 9 17 11 14 11 33 9 00 9 52 9 23 22 11 01 11 06 1 42 11 20 10 26 6 27 23 6 31 5 20 12 00 11 30 4 14 9 20 24 9 20 9 22 12 00 5 20 10 22 11 40 25 14 39 10 25 12 00 11 20 4 31 11 10 26 11 10 7 01 12 00 11 30 11 24 9 23 27 3 54 9 16 12 00 9 51 10 03 11 29 28 9 49 10 25 12 00 1 42 29 8 44 6 52 12 00 11 20 11 20 2 31 30 9 56 11 10 12 00 9 23 1 42 10 54 31 11 01 12 00 10 03 Total Hours 103 29 273 17 216 37 236 20 193 13 188 10 Per Hour.. 20c 20c 20c 20c 20c 20c 108 00 10 40 Per Hour.. 25c 25c Total Wages Paid |20 70 f54 66 $70 33 |47 27 |38 65 |40 31 161 Motorman since January, 1911. Wife and two children. This is the third time I've worked for the Company. De- tailed in August on sluggers. Found a gun in my pocket. Before the strike I made |7, |8, |9 a week ; barely existed. Worked as attendant at insane hospitals at |35, then at $25 a month. Worked in broom factory, etc. Mr. Mahoney always treated me like a man. 162 Hours of Time and Wages of Paul Smith, Car Service Department as Motorman, at 21c per Hour. Badge No. 129. June July Aug. Sept Oct. Nov. Date Hrs Min Hrs Min Hrs Min Hrs Min Hrs Min Hrs Min 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Total Time. 229 23 188 58 Total Actu- ally Paid. J?48 17 139 69 11 04 9 31 2 32 9 31 9 31 9 31 4 35 12 04 9 31 10 39 9 31 11 04 10 39 9 31 11 04 1 55 9 31 9 31 9 31 9 31 9 31 4 37 10 39 9 31 11 04 10 39 9 01 4 20 2 23 9 31 9 35 9 31 9 31 9 31 9 31 11 19 9 31 11 04 10 07 2 32 11 04 9 31 9 31 3 16 10 39 11 04 9 31 163 Age, 24. Motorman. Wife; no children. Second time with the company. Rent, |4 a week; light housekeeping. Grocery bill, |5 to $7 a week and 2 meals away from home each day for me. Buy my clothes on credit. I was dis- charged. Then later I was employed on detail work. One night I stood a summons ; called names ; vile ; then all went down to alley and had a fight. Police came ; searched liuto, etc. Saw Gus Bauer cut by an organizer. I knew there was going to be a strike and went home. Worked at Union Railway and Welsbach Light Company, Got $12 a week. Worked for Pennsylvania Company, but got appendicitis. When I came back I knew the conditions and wages. I didn't know any other job where I could get along without lifting. 164 Hours of Time and, Wages of A. H. Ray, Car Service Department, as Conductor, at 20c per Uour. Badge No. 80. Date 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Total Time. 172 31 244 43 248 29 11 05 Total Actu- allT Paid. 134 50 $48 95 |49 70 |2 22 Jun« July Aug. Sept. Oct Nov. Hrs Mln Hrs Min Hrs Mln Hrs Min Hrs Mln Hrs Mln 3 10 8 05 7 11 11 05 10 13 5 45 12 36 4 37 3 23 10 03 9 31 14 24 7 11 12 15 8 19 4 36 10 02 8 19 8 25 8 15 8 19 5 30 3 04 8 19 3 23 6 59 10 12 10 00 6 59 11 05 6 59 6 21 10 29 8 19 9 03 8 19 6 59 4 04 7 11 8 19 7 11 10 12 8 19 7 11 11 05 10 00 8 19 3 45 12 36 8 19 8 39 10 26 11 52 11 50 7 21 11 26 7 11 6 44 8 55 7 11 10 12 9 50 7 11 11 05 12 46 7 11 11 22 12 36 8 19 4 16 10 02 8 19 8 56 7 11 7 43 11 11 7 11 8 19 1 51 7 11 7 11 11 05 165 Conductor since February 16. Called in about my bond Went to see the bond men. They wouldn't give me any in- formation. Had a fight with James Gorman. Had a fight in Moran's saloon, while waiting for my father. 166 Hours of Time and Wages of C. Kinder, Car Service Department, as Conductor, at 21c per Hour. Bad^e No. 168. Date Hrs Min Hrs Min Hrs Min Hrs Min Hrs Min 1 10 27 10 23 9 30 10 04 10 02 2 10 23 9 43 10 04 10 02 10 02 3 10 23 9 43 11 04 10 02 10 02 4 10 23 9 26 9 30 10 02 10 12 5 10 23 9 14 9 30 10 02 11 06 6 10 23 9 02 9 30 10 35 10 02 7 10 16 9 43 9 30 11 06 10 02 8 10 27 9 43 9 30 10 02 10 02 9 10 23 9 43 10 04 10 02 10 02 10 10 23 9 38 11 04 13 57 10 02 11 10 23 9 38 9 30 14 02 10 12 12 10 23 11 02 10 02 11 06 13 10 23 10 07 10 12 10 02 14 10 16 9 38 9 30 11 06 10 02 15 10 27 9 30 9 30 10 42 10 02 16 10 23 10 34 10 04 10 02 10 12 17 10 23 10 34 11 04 2 22 10 02 18 10 23 10 34 9 30 10 12 19 10 23 10 08 9 30 20 10 23 9 54 9 30 10 12 11 38 21 12 09 9 30 11 06 11 38 22 10 27 10 34 9 30 10 02 23 10 23 9 30 10 04 10 02 11 38 24 1ft 23 9 30 10 02 11 38 25 10 23 9 30 9 30 10 02 11 35 26 10 23 10 04 9 30 10 02 27 10 23 11 04 9 30 10 12 11 38 28 10 16 9 30 9 30 11 06 11 38 29 10 27 9 30 9 30 10 02 30 7 00 9 30 10 04 10 02 31 9 30 11 04 Total Time. 309 52 296 09 275 06 287 12 264 47 Total Actu- ally Paid. 165 07 |62 19 $57 77 |60 31 $55 61 167 Conductor. Married. One boy. I made 114.40 a week. Pay 111 a month rent. Wife attends to bills and I don't know about them. I haven't saved anything. I presented the demands to Mr. Todd. I was in two crowds when stones were thrown. Was arrested, but acquitted. I made no effort to stop it. I had no right to stop it. 168 Hours of Time and Wages of B. E. Cook, Car Service Department as Motorman at 20c per hour. Badge No. 451. ji iTve July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Date HrsMin Hrs Min Hrs Min HrsMin HrsMin HrsMin 1 2 11 15 3 11 14 4 10 53 5 10 53 6 10 53 7 10 38 8 9 10 53 10 10 53 11 7 40 12 13 10 53 14 10 38 15 12 34 16 8 23 17 11 06 18 11 06 19 11 06 20 11 06 21 9 57 22 12 34 23 11 06 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Total Time. 215 41 Total Actu- ally Paid. |43 13 169 Discharged June 24th 1913. Motorman 18 months ; wife ; two children. Quit. Called to office about running away from a man out near Fair- grounds. He said, "Well, you can just quit." I don't know why I quit. Was in a fight. Arrested All parties discharged They followed me about three weeks. Rent, |8 ; grocery bill, |7 to |9 a week ; coffee, 30c a pound ; pota- toes, 35c a peck ; bacon, 23c ; apples, 25c a peck We pay |3.50 a month for apples. I was not able to save. I couldn't say I was satisfied with the wages, but I couldn't do any better. Worked at Newport, Ky., 20-23c. My run here was over |15.00 a week. Since, worked in a lumber mill, 20c an hour. Drivers get |9 to $12 a week. 170 Hours of Time and Wages of A. L. Deal, Car Service Department, as Conductor, at 20c per Hour. Badge No. 306. Date Hrs Min Hrs Min Hrs Min Hrs Min Hrs Min Hrs Mi)» 1 48 9 18 11 10 9 32 2 10 01 13 55 3 10 04 14 31 11 17 11 44 2 19 4 5 17 14 10 11 44 10 08 13 56 5 11 11 16 12 13 06 9 09 9 05 6 14 28 11 04 11 52 10 25 10 50 7 11 51 9 08 9 32 9 50 5 24 8 5 40 6 10 10 51 10 04 9 38 9 10 13 11 13 9 30 11 53 10 6 19 10 07 11 15 9 56 11 9 59 9 27 12 00 13 05 12 10 26 2 38 11 38 13 11 53 7 20 10 23 10 33 10 47 14 12 58 9 18 7 24 9 08 15 9 05 2 58 8 50 10 51 10 55 16 6 00 9 27 17 9 41 10 11 11 28 8 06 8 08 18 12 06 9 27 12 28 8 06 9 18 10 04 19 10 05 12 00 11 33 6 10 9 40 13 25 20 3 18 11 11 3 18 9 26 4 02 21 10 05 8 06 8 08 14 01 22 11 04 12 09 8 51 6 00 8 53 .>■•» 13 43 9 56 11 10 8 51 10 48 12 32 24 9 27 9 27 11 01 8 51 3 56 3 39 25 12 37 13 06 10 40 9 20 26 2 42 12 24 7 40 10 58 11 08 10 35 27 9 42 10 10 7 40 11 23 2 13 14 12 28 13 22 6 10 11 58 9 41 29 10 22 13 54 4 22 10 56 14 46 11 34 30 9 41 3 18 7 53 2 58 48 31 10 13 11 53 Total Time. 268 07 238 20 236 36 248 02 255 32 130 24 Total Actu- ally Paid. 153 63 147 66 147 32 149 61 |51 11 |26 08 171 Age, 22. Single. Support mother and brother living at Seymour. Employed May 5, 1913. I've worked for the Ck)mpany 3 times. My wages clear through the extra list would average |11 a week. Pay board |5.50 to |6 a week. Koom, 11.25 a week. Discharged by Tretton for stealing. Cautioned by Tretton for losing out. Discharged for in- sulting a lady. Joined the union. Arrested Saturday of strike. Worked at G. & J. Tire Company at 15c. Worked at Seymour at |9 a week. Mr. Mahoney said, "I'll give you another chance." I am now earning 20c. 172 Hours of Time and Wages of J. Schuler, Car Service Department as Motorman at 20c per Hour. Badge No. 953. June July Aug. Sept Oct. Nov. Date Hrs Min Hrs Min Hrs Min Hrs Min Hrs Min Hrs Min 1 6 29 2 10 32 3 10 25 4 6 26 5 10 46 6 10 32 11 33 7 3 34 8 14 22 10 45 10 00 9 9 29 10 22 10 17 53 11 40 11 16 30 9 32 12 8 44 10 50 11 33 13 13 22 10 22 14 12 10 15 11 22 9 01 10 17 16 8 57 9 23 7 32 17 11 20 3 10 18 11 01 10 22 19 11 22 11 30 20 6 26 5 04 21 11 12 10 12 22 11 01 10 22 23 10 25 5 22 24 6 56 10 26 25 11 08 10 51 26 10 25 11 10 27 13 10 4 14 28 10 14 9 23 29 8 57 8 34 30 11 20 10 17 31 9 17 Total Timfc 271 52 243 08 64 34 Wages Actually Paid f>4 37 48 63 12 92 173 Motorman ; working 3 months. I make between $10 and $11 a week. Before I got $11.50 a week in a tailor shop by working extra hours. Before that C. & O. freight house, 17e a hour. Before that on a farm, $25.00 a month. I am not trying to get work Father and brother sending me money. "I would go back to work even if no increase of wages was granted." 174 Hours of Time and Wages of H. C. Schmidt. Car Service Department as Conductor at 21c per Hour. Badge No. 57Q. June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Date Hrs Min Hrs Min Hrs Min Hrs Min Hrs MIn Hrs Min 1 10 36 10 57 10 57 11 23 10 57 2 10 39 10 57 10 36 6 25 10 09 3 10 39 10 57 11 23 10 57 10 57 4 11 41 10 57 10 36 5 10 39 11 23 10 57 10 57 6 10 39 10 36 10 57 10 36 11 57 7 10 36 11 23 10 57 10 23 10 57 8 11 23 10 57 5 43 10 57 10 57 11 22 9 10 39 10 57 10 36 10 57 10 57 11 23 10 10 39 10 57 11 23 10 57 10 57 10 57 11 10 39 10 57 10 57 8 40 10 36 10 57 12 10 02 10 57 10 57 12 00 10 57 13 10 39 10 36 10 57 10 36 10 57 10 57 14 11 36 10 23 10 57 11 23 10 57 15 11 23 10 57 10 57 10 57 10 57 10 36 16 10 39 10 57 11 23 10 57 10 57 11 23 17 10 39 10 57 10 59 10 57 10 57 18 10 39 10 57 11 30 9 28 10 36 10 57 19 10 39 10 57 11 30 10 57 11 23 10 57 20 11 23 11 30 10 36 10 57 10 57 21 10 36 10 57 11 06 11 23 13 31 10 57 22 11 23 10 57 7 20 5 19 10 57 11 23 23 10 39 10 57 10 53 10 57 10 57 11 23 24 10 39 10 57 11 23 10 57 10 57 10 57 25 10 39 10 57 10 57 10 57 10 36 10 57 26 10 39 10 36 10 57 10 57 3 52 10 57 27 10 57 11 23 5 47 10 57 11 23 28 10 36 10 57 11 23 10 57 10 57 29 11 23 10 57 10 57 10 57 10 57 10 36 30 10 57 10 57 10 36 10 57 10 57 11 23 31 10 57 11 23 9 58 Total Tinie...301 52 318 40 312 19 299 34 312 20 254 10 Total Actu- ally Paid. 63 39 66 92 65 59 62 92 65 59 53 38 175 Conductor for nearly 2 years. I make |16.12 for 7 days. If I worked 28 days get $64.48 ; off two days leave, |59.86. Groceries, |24 ; rent, |5 ; insurance and dues, |5 ; furniture, |12 ; clothing |5-|51.00. I've been called up six times ; four for the union I joined September 2. Mr. Mahoney wouldn't believe it when I told him I had not joined. A union man treats a union man better than he does a non- union man. We don't treat scabs as well as we do union men. If my motorman was not a union man he would be a scab. I don't think a non-union man is anything but a scab. By the union we are able to try all discharges before the commission. If the union is recognized they would be in a position to require all men to join the union. Before a man is discharged the matter would have to be investi- gated, and if they don't agree — arbitrate. I think the com- pany should prove by the spotter that the man took the money. 176 Hours of Time and Wages of P. M. Porter Car Service Department as Motorman at 23c per Hour. Badge No. 621. June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Date Hrs Min Hrs Min Hrs Min Hrs Min Hrs Min HrsMin 1 9 36 9 36 11 08 10 15 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 20 27 28 29 30 31 Total Time. 198 14 269 54 230 45 276 41 281 40 180 47 Total Wages Actually paid 45 59 62 08 53,07 63 63 64 79 41 59 9 36 12 57 9 36 10 15 9 36 11 08 9 36 10 15 11 08 10 12 12 57 9 36 11 08 12 57 10 15 9 36 11 08 11 15 9 36 2 06 7 20 10 13 9 36 10 15 10 34 9 36 9 36 9 36 10 15 10 15 9 36 9 36 9 36 10 12 10 15 9 36 12 57 9 36 9 36 10 34 11 08 9 36 10 15 12 57 9 36 5 45 11 08 10 15 10 15 11 08 9 36 9 36 9 36 10 12 9 36 7 00 12 57 9 36 10 15 10 34 9 36 4 42 11 08 9 36 10 15 9 36 13 28 1 56 10 12 9 36 12 57 9 36 9 36 10 34 9 36 9 36 11 08 9 36 12 57 10 15 8 16 11 57 9 36 9 36 11 08 10 15 8 16 11 08 9 36 9 36 9 36 10 15 12 57 9 36 9 36 12 57 9 36 10 15 11 08 9 36 11 08 9 36 10 15 8 16 9 36 9 36 9 36 9 36 10 12 9 36 9 36 7 58 9 36 9 36 10 34 9 36 9 36 11 08 9 36 10 12 10 15 12 57 1 50 9 36 10 34 10 15 9 36 3 04 9 36 9 36 10 15 12 57 9 36 9 36 12 57 10 45 11 08 9 53 11 08 11 19 177 Age, 28; married; two children. Worked this time four years. Worked a year once before. I get |16.50 for 7 days. Kent, 18.75; grocery bill, |5.00 a week. I've had to work overtime. The reason was the man that was to relieve me quit and they had no extra men to take my run. I always thought they didn't pay wages enough. Joined union Oc- tober 29. "I don't know where I could make as much." 178 Hours of Time and Wages of W. B. Akard, Car Service Department as Motorman at 21c per Hour. Badge No. 165. Date 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Total Time. 275 59 310 05 312 23 296 57 308 54 251 16 Total Actu- ually paid 57 96 65 12 65 60 63 36 64 87 52 77 June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Hrs Min Hrs Min Hrs Min Hrs Min Hrs Min Hrs Min 8 33 10 26 10 00 12 35 10 11 8 17 10 26 9 34 10 11 10 11 8 17 10 26 9 33 10 11 10 11 8 17 9 15 10 00 10 11 12 02 8 17 10 26 10 00 10 11 12 35 8 17 8 42 10 00 12 02 10 11 9 38 10 26 10 00 12 35 10 11 7 05 10 26 10 00 10 11 10 11 12 02 8 17 10 26 9 34 10 11 10 11 12 35 8 17 10 26 9 33 16 24 10 11 10 11 8 17 10 26 10 00 7 14 12 02 7 50 11 57 10 26 10 00 10 11 10 11 8 17 9 08 10 00 12 02 10 11 10 11 9 38 10 26 10 00 1 44 10 11 10 11 9 23 10 00 10 00 10 11 12 02 10 26 10 00 9 34 10 11 12 35 10 26 10 00 9 56 10 11 10 11 10 11 10 26 10 00 10 00 10 11 12 02 10 11 10 26 9 34 10 00 10 11 12 35 10 11 10 26 9 33 10 00 12 02 10 11 10 11 10 26 10 00 10 00 12 35 10 11 10 11 10 00 10 00 10 11 10 11 12 02 10 25 10 00 9 34 10 11 10 11 12 35 10 26 10 00 9 33 10 11 10 12 10 11 10 26 10 00 10 11 10 11 12 02 10 11 10 26 9 34 10 11 10 11 12 35 10 11 10 26 9 33 10 11 12 02 10 11 12 35 10 26 10 00 10 11 12 35 10 11 9 34 10 00 10 11 10 11 10 11 12 02 10 26 10 00 12 02 10 11 10 11 12 35 10 00 12 35 9 09 179 Motorman ; wife and four children, ages IS. My grocery bill f 5 to |6 a week. I have been in merchandise business. I'm saving to get back in business again. Average saving $100 a year. I had some little grievance, while I was an extra. ( Gave pay roll in detail. ) Conditions ought to be better for extra men. 180 Hours of Time and Wages of G. D. Miller, Car Service Department as Motorman at 20c per Hour. Badge No. 195. June Date 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Total Time. 275 31 218 35 294 22 266 22 252 14 141 09 Total Actu- ally paid. 55 11 43 72 59 88 53 28 50 45 28 23 June July Aug. Sept Oct. Nov. Hrs Min Hrs Min Hrs Min Hrs Min Hrs Min Hrs Min 11 07 6 10 11 15 8 08 8 51 13 30 10 00 10 08 9 36 8 51 9 32 14 23 12 13 9 36 8 51 11 05 12 31 9 26 9 36 11 34 14 11 7 04 6 10 9 36 48 5 24 11 04 7 24 10 59 9 45 7 13 10 26 10 54 8 51 10 15 11 14 6 32 8 51 4 08 6 00 10 59 9 36 8 51 9 18 9 36 8 51 6 47 7 58 9 36 11 34 15 50 8 06 8 08 12 07 9 08 10 59 8 51 10 26 9 19 10 11 11 08 8 51 8 08 5 24 9 50 8 51 8 53 5 46 14 08 9 36 7 57 9 22 11 44 11 28 9 36 3 39 8 53 5 18 11 41 71 46 9 36 10 19 8 53 10 04 6 36 9 59 9 36 48 8 53 11 52 9 22 11 01 10 59 8 51 8 53 10 26 12 12 11 08 8 51 8 53 10 12 14 31 8 51 9 36 8 51 8 53 10 58 8 36 10 47 9 36 8 51 9 22 3 18 8 08 8 53 8 36 8 51 11 22 8 51 9 36 11 34 8 53 4 00 13 56 8 51 9 36 8 08 11 06 11 08 8 51 10 59 8 51 9 22 9 42 12 07 8 51 8 51 9 36 8 47 8 51 8 51 8 51 10 59 10 56 14 18 11 18 8 51 8 51 10 58 12 07 8 08 9 36 181 Age, 24; wife; 1 child. Took me four months to get through the extra list. I worked most all the time. Live 22 squares from barn. In rooming house ; pay $4.50 a week rent; groceries, |4.50 a week. Worked Beech Grove, |2.00 a day ; Pan Handle, |1.70 to |1.75 a day ; Kokomo, 17c, for L. E. & W. ; Kokomo as a butcher, f 15.00 a week for short time. "Good places paying |15.00 a week are hard to get." Joined Union September 27 . 182 Hours of Time and Wages of T. Campbell, Car Service Department as Conductor at 20c per Hour. Badge No. 750. Date 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Jun« July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Hrs Min Hrs Min Hrs Min Hrs Min Hrs Min Hrs Min 10 11 11 24 1 51 10 05 12 49 11 34 8 00 7 34 7 11 7 21 10 00 12 53 10 00 5 45 9 30 8 57 12 44 3 45 11 17 10 32 10 32 2 22 4 14 11 26 8 43 10 13 23 23 8 18 10 37 13 20 11 05 10 02 11 00 11 22 11 05 13 13 8 52 11 20 11 05 11 47 12 34 3 58 13 47 4 14 7 20 10 08 11 05 1 55 9 30 10 10 5 45 10 32 10 11 11 03 9 30 11 29 11 29 12 48 14 21 8 39 11 05 11 48 11 05 10 15 11 29 11 05 11 12 11 05 15 55 11 05 4 42 11 05 12 45 12 01 11 05 4 37 12 56 10 50 4 43 11 05 11 18 11 05 4 34 10 47 10 32 11 28 10 32 10 47 10 58 11 29 13 20 12 51 11 20 11 05 11 22 11 05 4 34 10 37 11 05 14 23 11 29 11 58 11 05 9 04 12 56 13 02 11 00 11 29 10 01 12 56 11 25 4 14 13 37 3 45 1 51 11 00 11 28 10 32 10 02 9 33 12 51 11 29 3 45 10 39 Total Time. 141 18 317 20 273 46 262 23 261 19 Total Actu- ally Paid. 28 26 63 47 54 75 52 47 52 27 183 Age, 22. Called to testify to trouble between Dain and men in auto. I've worked 5 months. I couldn't say whether I would report a union man or not. The motormen and other guys reported to the police. 184 Hours of Time and Wages of A. Brown, Car Service Department as Conductor, at 25c Per Hour. Badge No. 506. June Date 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 le 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Total Time 319 40 337 28 338 18 255 43 314 24 Total Actually Paid: 179 92 184 37 |84 57 |63 94 |78 59 President of union. "I joined Nov. 1, in morning; was elected in the evening. I don't know who called the strike." June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Hrs Min Hrs Min Hrs Min Hrs Min Hrs Min Hrs Min 11 32 10 38 10 38 11 32 10 38 10 38 10 38 11 28 10 38 10 38 10 38 10 38 11 32 10 38 10 38 10 38 11 32 10 38 11 28 10 38 11 28 10 38 11 33 10 38 11 32 10 38 11 28 10 38 11 28 10 38 10 38 10 38 11 32 10 38 10 38 10 38 10 38 10 38 10 38 11 28 10 38 10 38 10 38 10 38 11 32 10 38 10 38 10 38 10 38 10 38 10 38 11 28 10 38 11 28 10 38 10 38 11 32 10 38 11 32 10 38 11 28 10 38 11 28 10 38 10 38 11 32 10 38 11 32 10 38 10 38 10 38 10 38 10 38 10 38 11 28 10 38 10 38 10 38 10 38 11 32 10 38 10 38 11 33 10 38 10 38 10 38 11 28 11 33 11 28 10 38 10 38 11 32 11 32 10 38 11 28 10 38 11 16 10 38 10 38 11 32 10 38 11 32 10 38 10 38 10 38 10 38 10 38 10 38 11 28 10 38 10 38 10 38 10 38 11 32 10 38 10 38 10 38 10 38 10 38 10 38 11 28 11 33 11 28 10 38 10 38 11 32 11 33 11 32 10 38 11 28 10 38 11 28 10 38 10 38 11 32 10 38 11 32 10 38 10 38 10 38 10 38 10 38 10 38 11 28 10 38 10 38 10 38 11 32 Hours of Time and Wages of T. Linkskey, Car service Department as Conductor, Badge No. 334. June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. I>a$e Hrs Min Hrs Min Hrs Min Hrs Min Hrs Min Hrs Min 1 11 35 11 13 11 27 2 10 40 11 13 8 36 3 10 40 11 13 8 15 11 13 4 10 40 11 29 11 27 11 13 5 10 40 11 13 11 27 11 29 6 10 40 11 29 11 27 11 13 7 11 45 11 13 11 27 10 59 11 13 8 11 35 11 13 3 20 11 27 10 13 9 10 40 11 27 11 27 11 29 10 10 40 10 59 11 27 11 13 11 13 11 10 40 11 18 11 27 11 27 11 13 11 13 12 11 13 11 27 11 27 11 29 11 13 13 10 40 11 29 11 27 11 13 11 13 14 11 45 11 45 11 27 10 59 11 13 15 11 30 10 32 11 13 11 13 16 11 54 11 27 11 13 5 12 17 11 13 10 57 11 13 11 13 11 13 18 11 13 10 57 11 13 11 13 19 10 57 11 29 11 13 20 10 59 11 13 11 13 13 06 21 11 13 10 57 11 29 11 13 22 11 29 10 57 11 13 11 13 11 13 23 11 13 11 13 11 13 11 29 24 11 13 11 13 11 13 11 13 25 11 13 11 27 11 13 11 13 11 13 26 11 13 11 27 11 13 11 29 27 11 13 11 13 11 13 28 11 13 11 27 11 29 11 13 11 13 29 11 29 6 06 11 13 11 13 30 11 13 11 27 11 29 31 11 27 9 46 Total Time 301 12 264 34 145 40 247 33 251 35 214 48 Time per hour : 22c 22c 22c 23c 23c 23c Total Actually Paid: 27 $58 21 |32 05 |56 92 |57 86 |49 40 186 Married; three children. Conductor 3 years and four months. "I worked on detail to follow Thorpe. They said they couldn't find me except when they gave the dollar out. Last Saturday a week ago I was called up to Mr. Mahoney's office on a charge of drinking. The hours and wages didn't suit me." 187 Hours of Time and Wages of C. Sacks, Car Service Department as Motorman at 20c Per Hour. Badge No. 835. June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Data Hrs Min Hrs Min Hrs Min Hrs Min Hrs Min Hrg Min 1 11 15 11 06 7 00 9 31 7 05 2 9 38 3 09 7 00 5 27 3 10 45 15 26 9 27 5 27 7 05 4 6 11 14 29 7 00 9 13 10 10 5 12 33 7 00 5 27 11 04 6 9 39 9 54 1 42 13 02 2 44 7 3 22 11 13 10 37 8 32 7 05 8 12 24 7 05 7 00 17 00 7 05 10 15 9 7 53 11 34 9 22 16 51 9 22 10 10 11 7 05 9 52 13 43 7 05 11 5 46 10 12 10 25 16 43 7 05 9 27 12 11 27 9 02 9 41 10 17 10 53 13 6 11 10 11 11 59 13 02 7 05 1 43 14 13 41 10 11 9 48 7 37 7 05 15 4 18 10 32 5 27 7 05 10 20 16 10 22 10 22 13 02 5 27 10 08 17 5 03 10 22 11 37 9 24 5 25 11 40 18 10 26 6 30 5 27 6 26 1 42 19 14 37 10 32 9 08 5 27 9 23 20 10 12 11 29 5 27 5 57 9 52 21 12 02 8 57 5 27 10 03 22 3 36 5 27 5 27 11 34 23 9 27 7 00 13 02 5 27 5 50 24 7 18 10 00 7 05 9 33 25 9 29 10 20 5 27 11 40 26 14 25 10 00 8 19 7 05 1 42 27 5 24 12 04 9 37 10 10 12 04 28 9 51 7 00 8 28 11 10 9 29 29 10 03 8 57 8 19 7 00 30 9 27 11 04 13 02 7 05 12 10 31 7 00 8 00 Total Time 250 44 290 01 252 53 240 32 109 51 185 50 Total Actually Paid : |50 15 |58 01 |50 57 |48 11 |21 97 |37 17 Age 21. Called to testify to a fight between Cook and Gorman. 1S8 Hours of Time and Wages of W. Euliss, Car Service Department as Conductor at 25c Per Hour. Badge No. 448. Date 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Total Time 279 54 333 58 236 38 128 04 203 14 242 32 Total Actually Paid : |69 98 183 50 |59 16 |32 02 |50 81 $60 64 Jun