Railroads

What Was Done. The Senate last week passed the Watson-Parker railway bill, which is to say that, the President having signed on the dotted line, the section of the Transportation act creating the Railroad Labor Board is repealed, the board goes out of existence, and hereafter railway labor disputes will run the following course: 1) Attempt by employers and employes to reach a mutual agreement; 2) Attempt by boards of adjustment representing both parties to settle the difference; 3)

Attempt by a board of five mediators appointed by the President to bring the two parties together; 4) Attempt to induce the two parties to accept arbitration, the finding of which would be legally binding; 5) Investigation of the matters in dispute by a board of investigation appointed by the President to report to him within 30 days; 6) No strike until 30 days after the report of this board has been made public.

The Setting. The bill was drawn up in conference between the railroad unions and executives of some of the railways (TIME, Jan. 18, RAILWAYS). The unions indorsed it wholeheartedly. The railway executives' association gave it majority support. The President in his message to Congress had said that such a bill was in process of preparation and recommended favorable consideration. He later announced, however, that the bill was not to be considered an administration measure. It was passed by the House (TIME, March 15, CONGRESS) but in the Senate met a stubborn resistance. The minority of the railway executives, led by Leonor F. Loree, President of the Delaware & Hudson, took up the fight. The National Association of Manufacturers and the American Farm Bureau Federation also opposed the bill. They argued that at no place in the cascade of arrangements for settlement was the public represented, that there was no guarantee that there would be no strike, that it would probably result in wage increases and then rate increases for the public.

The Alignment. The curious situation lay in the fact that Senator Curtis, the Republican leader, and Senator Robinson, the Democratic leader, both opposed the bill -- yet it was passed by vote of 69 to 13. The opponents of the bill never mustered more than 14 votes. The opposition was small but stiff. Senator Curtis offered an amendment which would have allowed the Interstate Commerce Commission to reverse any wage settlement if it was likely to cause an increase of freight rates contrary to the public interest. He brought together only 12 votes for his proposal. For five days this little band of ill-assorted comrades in arms stuck together --Republican leader and Democratic leader against the majority of their parties. Underwood, the Conservative Democrat, and Reed (Mo.), the apotheosis of opposition, were also with them. Moses, the Regular Republican, and Norbeck, the Progressive Republican, were with them -- each of them on the other side of the fence from those who are usually of their way of thinking.

Five Days. Bruce, the Conservative from Maryland, voted for the measure, but not until he had proposed and been defeated in each of six amendments -- not until he had awakened Senator Neely, Democrat from West Virginia, to exceedingly vigorous language:

The VICE PRESIDENT: "The Senator from West Virginia has the floor."

Mr. BRUCE: "Mr. President--"

The VICE PRESIDENT: "Does the Senator from West Virginia yield?"

Mr. NEELY: "I do not; and I have repeatedly so stated. I believe that I do not exaggerate when I say that we have listened to the Senator from Maryland speak approximately 75 times on this bill. We have learned to know in advance just what he is going to say. We should not be afflicted with more vain repetitions. Everyone now knows how he will vote on the pending bill and on every proposed amendment to it, regardless of anything the Senator from Maryland may say. No one will challenge the assertion that the Senator thinks that he knows better than anyone else how the Senate ought to vote on this and every other question that comes before it. We have voted down everything the Senator from Maryland has proposed and defeated everything he has supported, by a majority of 3 to 1. If we could only devise some humane method of preventing the Senator from Maryland from making two or three hundred more speeches on the bill, we could easily pass it through the Senate before the end of the day.

"But some debaters are insuppressible.

"It is as useless and hopeless to talk against their persistent, painful, and pestiferous argumentation as it is to try to cure the hay fever. . . .

"Likewise, apparently, nothing can stop the senatorial flood of garrulity with which we have been deluged for many days. Therefore, let us pray for patience --patience as much greater than the patience that made Job famous as our present affliction is greater than that of the boils with which the man of Uz was covered and cursed. . . .

"And if the Senator from Maryland will only stop talking long enough to enable us to obtain a final vote this evening, I shall concede to him all the superior wisdom of which he believes himself to be the repository.

"In the name of railroad men, and railroad owners, and railroad operators, and in the name of financial prosperity and industrial peace, I demand that we vote without further delay."

To this Mr. Bruce, instead of replying in his earnest way, merely shouted, "Question, Mr. President!" signifying that he too wished to vote.

The "nays" produced only an unlucky 13 votes. Then Senator Norbeck's sarcasm broke all bonds, and he moved to amend the title of the bill* so that it would read, "A bill to increase the farmer's working day from 14 to 16 hours and to reduce the railroad man's working day from 8 to 7 hours."

But the Senate was tired and gruffly growled its "nays." And that was done.

A rather unusual procedure. Such a motion is in order after a bill is passed. Mr. Dawes had to consult the official parliamentarian who acts as his prompter before he ruled it in order.