I think that we have had so very few strikes in this country that I believe the record of the Board of mediation will sustain just what I am saying, that if one side or the other is wrong in a position that it is taking, eventually the Board will face you with public opinion and when the carriers feel they cannot sustain it before the bar of public 'opinion, or if the employees feel that they cannot, then you will find that there will be a solution worked out.

Neither side can go before the bar of public opinion and justify a rash act of tying up these railroads, or refusing a fair settlement. I think that we in this particular case do not seem to have available to us, because of the controls, any medium through which we can create a situation where we can get justice. The Government has the railroads, the Army is operating them, and that is all.

The Army is running them by authority-the same gentlemen who ran the railroads before the Government took over are running them again. They have on Army uniforms, but discipline is just as severe. They cut off an hour's time just like they always did. The Government does not know a thing about that. Grievances are just the same.

Today the railroads are sheltered in the position they take. Whether they like it or not is not for me to say. The White House has two problems in this controversy, two problems that neither the railroads nor employees put in there. Whether the railroads like the defense that they are required to make in defending those problems is not for me to say. I know we cannot get a settlement with them on the same basis for our 40-hour week that the shop men, the million or more of them, have had in effect for more than 2 years.

Why can we not get it? Because someone in the White House or somewhere says, "We will put in a 6-day week for them." Who wants a 6-day week? We do not. Where is it in the country? There is none in the country that I know of. It is either a 5-day week or nothing. We have a 56-hour week in most of our yards and shops in the country as against 40 hours in the industries.

What is wrong with the railroads? Are we so essential to the successful operation or functioning of this Government that we cannot even argue before a tribunal that expresses public opinion and will mete out justice to these workers? I think the Government has an obligation to these workers when it ties their economic hands and prevents them from refusing to work under conditions that to them are not acceptable, when the Government itself sits idly by and says, "We are running the railroads, we are not handling the railroad dispute." I tell you it is un-American to us and you cannot expect men in the railroad industry who have gone down through the years helping to win these wars and keep our transportation industry where it is, make the industry what it has been-you cannot expect those men, blasting through the snow and ice at all hours of night, winter and summer, to stay on the job and have somebody say, "You have not had an increase in pay since 1948, but that goes with the game."

Mr. FEIGHAN. Mr. Robertson, the crux of this situation, and the result of the operation of this statute, is such that it deprives the employees of their economic power. By the same token, by depriving the employees of their economic power, you are adding to the economic power of the carrier.

Mr. ROBERTSON. That is absolutely right, Congressman. It is so unbalanced, just as unbalanced as you have stated it.

Mr. FORRESTER. I think they should be dealt with fairly and honestly, because I cannot envision anybody-when the time came that it was absolutely necessary for everything to function-I could not envision anybody stopping under circumstances like that, because our first duty is to save this country. If we do not save this country there will not be any railroads or anything else. That is the question that I' was trying to get answered, that if you did not get anything, what would happen. But I will withdraw that question.

Mr. ROBERTSON. I think, Congressman, that I would like to add one word in closing, in reply to what you have said. Is it not a strange thing that every other industry in this country, each being important in itself, each playing its part and contributing its share toward the war program here in this country, that they can get along? They have produced the things we haul. We would not have a pound of military materials to haul if they did not produce them. They can get along under a law that does not handcuff them like we are handcuffed in the present situation. Yet they are the people who produce these missiles of war and these arms and all that we haul. All we do is transport them across the country.

Mr. FORRESTER. I think that we have caught that point all right that you are making there.

Mr. FEIGHAN. Mr. Robertson, I believe that you have made it clear in this testimony that it is the policy of the employees to continue the operation of railroads for the transportation of any military or war supplies and hospitalization facilities. Is that correct?

Mr. ROBERTSON. Yes, sir.

Mr. FEIGHAN. I want to know if that is a binding policy or will that have to be ratified by a vote of the membership.

Mr. ROBERTSON. That has been ratified by the membership, and these are the instructions that are put out, applying to every railroad involved in Government ownership.

Mr. FORRESTER. Mr. Feighan, was that put into the record?

Mr. FEIGHAN. No. If you would like, you may include that in the record.

Mr. ROBERTSON. I would be very glad to have that in, and also supplement it with this statement: Those instructions go in every strike ballot that we put out, those strike instructions, I mean.

Mr. FEIGHAN. We would be glad to have it and include it in the hearing.

Thank you very much, Mr. Robertson. It has been a privilege to have the opportunity to hear you.

Mr. ROBERTSON. We are glad to be here, Congressman.

STATEMENT OF JAMES P. SHIELDS, GRAND CHIEF ENGINEER, BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE ENGINEERS

Mr. SHIELDS. I appear before you on behalf of Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, an unincorporated labor union having its principal office in Cleveland, Ohio.

The brotherhood represents approximately 80,000 engineers, firemen.. and hostlers employed on the railroads in the United States and Canada. Since August 1950 I have been grand chief engineer of the brotherhood and its chief executive officer.

We requested this opportunity to present our statement to your committee because you are giving consideration to the administration's proposal to extend the war power, provided in the act of August 29, 1916, relating to governmental possession, control, and operation of transportation systems, a power which has already been utilized and is presently being utilized to visit widespread and grievous injustices upon our members.

I shall show you that those injustices are actual, not theoretical. I hope to suggest to your committee a realistic approach to the problem of rail seizure which will distribute the burdens of governmental seizure fairly and equitably upon both employees and private ownership of the railroads.

Before discussing the harms which recent applications of the act of August 1916 have visited upon our people, I should like to give you a brief résumé of my background and experience.

I began my railroad career as a fireman in the employ of the Michigan Central Railroad. Subsequent to that time I was employed as a fireman on several railroads, and in 1910 I established a seniority date as a fireman on the Union Pacific, a date which is still effective for me on that property. In 1916 I was promoted to the position of engineer and continued working in that capacity until 1932, at which time I was elected to the position of general chairman of the brotherhood on the eastern district of the Union Pacific.

I continued in the capacity of general chairman until March 15, 1939, when I was appointed temporary assistant grand chief. Since that time, as assistant grand chief and as first assistant grand chief, I have represented the brotherhood in several Nation-wide wage and rules movements, and carried on the other duties of those offices until my selection by our 1950 convention as grand chief engineer.

As assistant and as first assistant, I was the brotherhood officer assigned to represent the grand chief engineer in national conferences, emergency board proceedings, and mediation sessions in our 1943-44 Diesel movement, our 1946 wage-rules movement, our 1948 wagerules movement, and in our 1948-49 Diesel movement. When the present wage-rules program was instituted the then grand chief engineer assigned me to work with the wage-rules committee, and throughout the entire movement up to now I have been intimately involved as principal representative of the brotherhood.

It is from that background and with those experiences as a working fireman and engineer and as a labor union official that I speak to you today. I do not speak as a lawyer or as a legislator. Our counsel is present with me to discuss legal phases of the pending legislation if your committee desires to hear from him. I am confident, however, that I am here expressing the earnest sentiments and the serious thoughts and conclusions of our 80,000 members and their families.

THE "WAR POWER" OVER RAILROADS

The act of August 1916 consists of a single sentence which was incorporated, if you please, in a lengthy and detailed Armed Forces appropriation bill. The legislative history is purely formal, and there are thus no guides to the intentions of Congress except the words of the enactment itself. It reads:

The President, in time of war, is empowered through the Secretary of War, to take possession and assume control of any system or systems of transporta

tion, or any part thereof, and to utilize the same, to the exclusion as far as may be, of all the other traffic thereon, for the transfer or transportation of troops, war material and equipment, or for such other purposes connected with the emergency as may be needful or desirable.

Now it is proposed that these broad powers, not defined or limited by any legislatively prescribed standards or rules, be continued in time of peace and be broadened so as to authorize the President to delegate them to whomsoever he may choose, without even the requirement that the responsible administrator be an executive officer confirmed by the Senate.

WORLD WAR I SEIZURE

While the President acted under authority of this act in seizing possession of the railroads during the First World War, the legality of this seizure was in serious question and Congress hastened to pass legislation properly delegating functions and prescribing standards. The President proclaimed the seizure on December 26, 1916. By March 21, 1918, Congress had enacted and the President had signed an elaborate Federal Control Act prescribing in full all the incidents of the taking and the manner in which the railroads were to be operated. Appropriate tripartite governmental machinery for fixing rates of pay, hours, and working conditions was established. The profits went into the United States Treasury.

Mr. FORRESTER. Where did the losses go? You said that the profits went into the United States Treasury. Where did the losses go? Or were there any losses?

Mr. SHIELDS. I assume they were assumed by the United States. That is my understanding of the legislation.

Mr. FORRESTER. I do not want to interrupt your reading, but do you know whether there were any losses or not?

Mr. SHIELDS. I do not recall any; no, sir.

Mr. FEIGHAN. Mr. Shields, do I infer from that that the railroads which may have been paying dividends to stockholders no longer could pay dividends to their stockholders, and that the profits all went to the public Treasury?

Mr. SHIELDS. There was some limitation imposed on them. I cannot say exactly what the extent of those limitations was. Mr. FORRESTER. I did not want to interrupt you.

SEIZURES AFTER TERMINATION OF WORLD WAR II HOSTILITIES

Mr. SHIELDS. In contrast, seizures in 1948 and in 1950 to 1952 have been carried out solely upon the authority assumed to be granted by the single sentence act of August 1916, with no other empowering or implementing legislation whatsoever. The power has been applied by simple Executive orders directed to the Secretary of the Army.

Private management has continued for all practical purposes as if there had been no seizure. Profits have been retained, invested, and disbursed by private ownership without limitation. Our members have been hired, fired, promoted, and demoted exactly as if the Executive orders had never been issued. It is entirely fair to say that the so-called seizures have been intended for prevention of and carried into effect only so far as has been deemed necessary to prevent con

certed work stoppages occasioned by labor disputes between the railroad owners and their employees.

The facts and conclusions concerning recent railroad seizures are not doubtful. They are fully documented by the Executive orders themselves, by the written orders and instructions of the Secretary of the Army and his delegate, the Assistant Secretary, and by the written operating agreements entered into between the United States and the owning carriers.

This documentation is fully recorded in the printed transcript of hearings before the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, United States Senate, Eighty-second Congress, first session, on labor dispute between railroad carriers and four operating railroad brotherhoods, February 22, 26, 27, March 1, 5, 7, 12, 14, 15, 16, 21, 22, 28, 29, 30, April 3 and 5, 1951.

Indeed, the Senate committee dug deeply into every phase of the seizure power and its restraining effect upon efforts to achieve a fair and just settlement of our Nation-wide wage-rules dispute with the railroads.

THE CURRENT WAGE-RULES MOVEMENT AND THE CURRENT SEIZURE

On Friday of last week our brotherhood, together with the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Engineermen and the Order of Railway Conductors, concluded our defense to the application of the United States for a preliminary injunction against legal strikes those three organizations initiated on March 9, 1952, against the lines of the New York Central Railroad and its subsidiaries west of Buffalo (excluding Canadian lines) and those of the Terminal Railroad Association of St. Louis.

On March 11, 1952, the United States obtained from United States District Court Judge Emerich B. Freed, sitting at Cleveland, Ohio, a temporary restraining order terminating those strikes. The case is Civil Action No. 28926 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division.

The restraining order has been continued in effect until April 23, 1952, by which time Judge Freed will make his decision either granting the Government's application for a preliminary injunction or denying that application and, consequently, also dissolving the existing restraining order.

The written and oral proof presented to Judge Freed during seven court days from March 27 through April 4, 1952, fully explores all the facts and legal issues involved in the current seizures. That evidence also sharply emphasizes the disadvantageous position in which seizure has placed our brotherhood, its sister labor organizations, and the employees they represent, in violent contrast to the advantageous position in which the privately owned railroads find themselves as a result of the same governmental action. We would be glad, if your committee desires, to discuss with you orally the serious implications of and the unhappy details of that litigation, or to provide for your information and use any or all the documents which have been presented to the court, as well as a copy of the reporter's transcript of the oral proceedings.

In this statement, however, I wish merely to emphasize at this point that the proof establishes beyond any question of doubt that the only

98207-52-33