the House and Senate in the debates preceding its passage. It was felt by a number of those representing the labor movement outside of the railway-train service that the law was a dangerous innovation for two reasons: In the first place, it was feared that the power granted to the courts of equity to enforce the decisions of the boards of arbitration was too vague and general and might lead to the exercise of an oppressive judicial power neither foreseen nor desired by those advocating the bill. It was also felt that the bill might prove the entering wedge for a system of compulsory arbitration to which the representatives of the labor movement were emphatically opposed. Both these criticisms of the law were explicitly and emphatically stated on the floor of both the Senate and the House. The entire discussion of the law in the debates preceding its passage centered around the arbitration provisions of the act, and the possibilities of the provisions for mediation were little appreciated. The actual working of the law, however, has failed to justify the fears at that time expressed.

The provisions for arbitration have been seldom directly invoked (only four times since the passage of the act), and the courts have never been called upon to enforce an award. That the provisions for mediation have proved of much greater importance than the arbitration features of the act is not only an unexpected but probably a fortunate development.

HISTORY OF FIRST ATTEMPT TO UTILIZE ERDMAN ACT.

That the time was not wholly ripe for the passage of such an act is indicated by the fact that the first effort to utilize its provisions, made within a year after its passage, resulted not only in a complete failure, but even in a repudiation of its principles by the leading railroad companies involved; and by the further fact that for a period of seven and a half years no other effort was made to invoke its provisions.

This first effort to utilize the mechanism for conciliation and arbitration provided in the statute forms so important a chapter in the history of the development of methods of maintaining industrial peace, and the correspondence growing out of this effort brought out so clearly and concisely some of the views then held concerning the arbitration of industrial disputes that the matter is given here in some detail.

This first effort to utilize the provisions of the new statute grew out of a movement undertaken in September, 1898, by the conductors and brakemen engaged in switching service in the railroad yards in and about Pittsburgh to secure an increase in wages and certain changes in working conditions upon the railroads having a switching service in what was known as the "Pittsburgh district."

At that time the rates of pay for conductors and brakemen engaged in switching operation in the Pittsburgh yards were as follows:

In addition to these rates a 10-hour day was asked for with overtime pro rata for any work performed in excess of 10 hours.1

The rates asked for by the switchmen were stated by them to be the standard rates " paid in the yards in Chicago, St. Louis, most of the yards at Cincinnati, and other yards of importance in that territory and west of Chicago."

The following roads were involved in this movement for an increase in pay and a reduction of hours:

Pennsylvania R. R.

Pennsylvania Lines West of Pittsburgh.

Allegheny Valley Ry.

Pittsburgh & Lake Erie R. R.

Pittsburgh & Western R. R.

Union R. R. (including yard employees of Carnegie Steel Co.). Monongahela Connecting R. R.

Laughlin Iron Co.

Although the employees on the several roads were practically acting in concert in this matter, their proposals were presented to each road separately by the local committees representing the employees on that road. A number of the smaller roads stated to their committees that they would grant any increases that might be granted by the larger roads; but as the principal roads involved declined to grant any increase, no progress was made by the local committees in their efforts to secure increases.

The switchmen involved were members of the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, and after several months of fruitless efforts by the local committees to secure any settlement of their controversies the assistance of their national organizations was invoked. In January and February, 1899, two of the chief officers of the brotherhood

1 The present ruling rates of pay for conductors and brakemen in switching service in the Pittsburgh yards are as follows:

Day conductors

Day brakemen

Night conductors.

Night brakemen-

37 cents per hour

34 cents per hour

39 cents per hour

36 cents per hour

Ten hours or less constitute a day's work, and overtime pro rata is paid for any work performed in excess of 10 hours.

took charge of the matter and held a number of conferences with the roads involved, but were unable to obtain any substantial concessions in the matter of wages and hours. Further action was then postponed until after the fourth biennial convention of the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, which was to meet in May of that year. Immediately after the convention the grand master of the trainmen, as stated by him in his report to the fifth biennial convention in 1901, "concluded, after a consultation with prominent members interested, my associate officers, and the executives of the other organizations represented in the federation who would become involved in the trouble, to test the efficiency of the act of Congress, approved June 1, 1898, and commonly known as the arbitration law.'

* *

As the first step to invoking the provisions of the arbitration law the grand master of the Brotherhod of Railroad Trainmen addressed the following letter to the secretary of the Interstate Commerce Commission:

Hon. E. A. MOSELEY,

Secretary Interstate Commerce Commission,

MAY 29, 1899.

Washington, D. C.

DEAR SIR: A serious situation presents itself to the brotherhood, as well as to a number of railways involved. Through our organization the men employed in yard service on the different railway lines in one of the large switching centers have asked for an adjustment of their wages and hours of labor. No relief has been given, and we have practically exhausted every effort to settle the matter. The men are dissatisfied and will not be put off in this way. Their claims are just and reasonable. I desire to take advantage of the arbitration act, and enlist the offices of the chairman of the Interstate Commerce Commission and the Commissioner of Labor in the hope of settling this matter amicably. Will you kindly communicate my wish to these gentlemen and have them fix a time when I can meet them at Washington for the purpose of formally presenting the situation to them.

An early consideration of, and reply to, the foregoing will greatly oblige.

Yours, truly,

P. H. MORRISSEY, Grand Master Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen. After some informal discussion with the mediators designated in the arbitration law, the grand master of the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen addressed to them the following formal application for mediation:

Hon. MARTIN A. KNAPP,

Chairman Interstate Commerce Commission.

Hon. CARROLL D. WRIGHT,

Commissioner of Labor, Washington, D. C.

JUNE 21, 1899.

GENTLEMEN: During the month of September, 1898, the conductors and brakemen employed in the several railway yards (excepting the

Baltimore & Ohio) in the Pittsburgh, Pa., switching district, through regularly appointed committees of the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, employees of the respective lines, presented to the officials of the companies a scale of wages and hours which they asked to be put into force, requesting that the same be considered and answer made thereto within 30 days. The roads to which the schedules were presented are as follows: Pennsylvania Railroad; Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway; Allegheny Valley Railway; Pittsburgh & Western Railway; Pittsburgh & Lake Erie Railway; Union Railway: Laughlin & Co. (Ltd.); Monongahela Connecting Railway; and Pittsburgh, Fort Wayne & Chicago Railway.

The wage scale asked for was uniformly as follows: Day conductors, $2.75 per day; night conductors, $2.90 per day; day brakemen, $2.50 per day; night brakemen, $2.70 per day; 10 hours or less to constitute a day's work; overtime after 10 hours to be paid for at one-tenth the above rate per hour.

In addition to the wage scale the employees of each road asked for the adoption of certain rules guaranteeing their rights in the service, a fair hearing when dismissed for any alleged offense, etc. The rates as above practically represent what is known as "standard pay in the switching service, as paid in the yards of Chicago and St. Louis, and by some of the lines at Cincinnati, Detroit, and Columbus, and in most of the switching yards of any prominence west of Chicago.

The present Pittsburgh switching scale is as follows: Day conductors, 24 cents per hour; day brakemen, 18 cents per hour; night conductors, 25 cents per hour; night brakemen, 19 cents per hour.

The Pittsburgh scale is less than paid at the points before mentioned, as well as being less than is paid in most of the yards at Buffalo, Cleveland, Toledo, Ashtabula, Youngstown, and Indianapolis, and in many of the yards of lesser importance in the territory between Pittsburgh and Chicago. I would also mention that east of Pittsburgh the New York, New Haven & Hudson River Railroad has lately put into effect an eight-hour day system at much higher rates per hour than the Pittsburgh scale.

The committees called on their superintendents at the end of 30 days for answers to their requests and the propositions were either denied outright or they were told the company could do nothing in the matter, or that they would have to go to the higher officials of the road. This latter was done in each and every instance, and the highest officer in charge of operation on each line was approached by a committee of the men, as well as by an officer representing the brotherhood, who, in accordance with the usual practice in such cases, renewed every honorable effort to settle the grievances. I desire to state in this connection that excepting in one instance, that of the Pennsylvania lines west of Pittsburgh, wherein Mr. Loree, general manager, declined to meet the representative of the brotherhood, both the committees and the officers of the organization were courteously met by the managements, who, after considering the matter, declined to grant the increase of wages, most of them on the grounds that if they did it others would have to do it, some of them assigning as a

reason that their property was not paying sufficiently well to permit the advance, while others gave no definite reason other than they would not concede the advance. In one or two instances the committees were informed that certain companies would pay the proposed scale if others would pay it.

This brief statement of facts is sufficient to show that the efforts of these employees to secure equal wages paid to other employees in the switching service similarly situated have been orderly, free from agitation, and characteristic of the methods which we believe should obtain in the intelligent labor movement of our country. That their position is a reasonable one we believe will be substantiated on investigation. Heretofore the efforts of the men employed in the switching service in large yards to secure what is generally accepted as the standard wage have been largely attended by agitation and strikes, greatly injuring the earnings of the companies as well as of the men involved, and, as you are probably aware, thereatening at the time the peace and good order of the communities. We believe that the same results can be obtained by conservative methods and the reasoning of the differences as between the employees and their employers. All this we have endeavored to do and have failed. We have made repeated efforts to secure a joint conference between committees of the employees and representatives of the different railway interests at Pittsburgh and have failed. The men are now left the alternative of yielding their requests or pressing the matter further, in accordance with the rights given them under our organization, viz, to strike. I have been repeatedly requested by the men involved to take a vote on the proposition to strike in support of their grievances; but knowing how they feel in the matter, both from personal observation and knowledge, as well as the communications that come to my office from the district, and the report of one of my associate officers who has had much to do with the matter, I know that the result will be almost unanimous in favor of a strike, and my experience suggests to me that men once having taken a position in a matter of this kind, after carefully weighing the consequences of their proposed action, are much more difficult to reason with toward an amicable adjustment of affairs than if the question of strike had not been submitted to them and agreed to by them. There are over 1,000 men in the switching service in the Pittsburgh district, and the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen is fairly representative of them. This number, as well as the large number of members of the brotherhood in the train service on each of the lines before mentioned, would become involved in case of a strike.

On account of the foregoing reasons and for other reasons, I have concluded that the controversy is sufficiently serious to warrant asking your intervention, as permitted by section 2 of the act of Congress approved June 1, 1898, entitled "An act concerning carriers engaged in interstate commerce and their employees." I therefore request you on behalf of the employees in the switching service on the lines referred to in Pittsburgh and vicinity, who, as before stated, are fairly represented by the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, of which organization I am the executive officer, to use your good offices