agricultural bloc in Congress was centered upon the Administration and the Commission.

Following the hearings upon the several applications for rate cuts, the Commission ordered reductions in the rates on live stock, hay and grain, and subsequently the railroads voluntarily offered to make a 10% reduction on all products of the farm, orchard and ranch. There was evidence that this offer was designed to mollify the agricultural bloc which had set out to cripple the Transportation Act by forcing through an amendment which would eliminate the rule of rate-making. The offer of the railroads was approved by the Commission and in the meantime, on December 14, it began a long drawn out inquiry into the broad question of railroad management and its relation to the rate scale as a whole.

The railroads contended that in view of their precarious financial condition, the rate reductions should wait until the Labor Board had acted upon the pending requests for for wage reductions. During the first half of the year very few roads had earned sufficient to pay their full charges. Some carriers had barely earned their operating expenses and taxes. But the shippers insisted that the delay of the Railroad Labor Board in bringing about a liquidation in labor should not be allowed to block a prompt adjustment in a rate scale so high as, in their opinion, to restrict industry and commerce. The latter view finally prevailed when the Commission, in May, 1922, decided that a general reduction in freight rates should be made. In the meantime the Railroad

Labor Board had ordered a 12% reduction in wages and had annulled some of the restrictive rules of the national agreements.

From the viewpoint of organized labor the developments of 1921 were decidedly unfavorable. The aim of the leaders had been to retain the maximum of the concessions granted to labor under the exigencies of the war emergency and in the subsequent period of inflation. Their policy had been to resist to the utmost every effort on the part of the railroads, and the shippers' organizations (which in this matter supported the railroads), to restore the former relationship between payrolls and revenues.

It will be recalled that in May, 1920, the Labor Board, in disposing of the controversy carried over from federal control, ordered a general increase of 22% in the wages of all classified employees, and continued indefinitely all of the rules of the United States Railroad Administration, including the national agreements. This increase added more than $600,000,000 per year to the $1,000,000,000 annual increases authorized during federal control. When the bottom fell out of business in December, 1920, and the necessity for deflation became apparent, the railroads appealed to the Labor Board to restore the wage basis in effect before the advances of May, 1920, were made. Later they petitioned for the cancelation of the national agreements. Hearings were begun in January, 1921, and the proceedings dragged on for months. The Board's decision was not announced until June, when a 12% re

duction was ordered, effective July 1. This meant a cut of about $400,000,000, and left the wage scale about 7% or 8% above that in effect at the conclusion of federal control. With this decision came also an order abrogating the national agreements in principle, but specifying that they should be continued in force until the railroads individually with their employees should be able to negotiate an agreement which would provide for mutually satisfactory substitutes. Failing to reach an agreement, the disputed points were to be referred to the Board for final decision.

This abrogation of the principle of the national agreements was ineffective. The employees, acting upon the advice of their leaders, held out for the continuation of all of the favorable rules. The inevitable result was to bring the controversy again before the Board. During the closing months of 1921 the Board decided most of the points in dispute. These applied almost entirely to the shop crafts, clerks, stationmen, signalmen, and maintenance-of-way employees. The train service brotherhoods were not affected by the national agreements. They had had individual contracts with the railroads for many years and were content to adhere to that policy. Effective December 1, 1921, a large part of the national agreements' rules which restricted output, un fairly penalized the roads for overtime, or required two or more men to do work which formerly was done by one man, were canceled.*

*The cancelation of favorable rules was one of the issues in the shopmen's strike in July, 1922.

Following the announcement of the wage reductions of July 1, most of the labor organizations polled their members to ascertain their attitude toward a strike in resistance to the wage cut. In all cases the leaders announced that the men were practically unanimous in voting to strike. Needless to say, however, a vote to strike seldom means that the voter desires that a strike be called. It is merely a vote of confidence in their leaders, so that their hands will be strengthened in negotiation. The tactics of the leaders indicated that the strike vote, which was taken on the issue of the July 1 reductions, was not taken for the purpose of striking against that award. There is little doubt that its primary purpose was to discourage the railroads from carrying out their announced intention to seek further reductions. The railroads had asked the Labor Board to restore the wage scale in effect before wages were advanced in May, 1920. To do so would have required a reduction of approximately 18%, but the Board's order called for a cut of but 12%. Disappointed in the result, the railroads allowed it to become known that they would ask their employees to accept a further reduction, and would again appeal to the Labor Board if the employees refused to agree. It was clearly evident that the talk of striking against the July award was intended to forestall further action on the part of the railroads.

The railroads, however, were not influenced by the strike talk. On October 14, they announced through the Association of Railway Executives

that they would appeal to the Labor Board to order a further reduction to restore the wage basis of April 30, 1920. This proposed move was met at once by an order from the chiefs of the enginemen, firemen, conductors, trainmen and switchmen to their membership to strike on September 30. Technically the strike was to be against the July 1 reduction and would therefore be a strike against the acceptance of a Government (Labor Board) decision.

The initiative was taken by the train service brotherhoods with the expectation that they would be joined by the other organizations, but as differences arose between the two groups, the American Federation of Labor organizations decided to hold themselves aloof and await developments. There had never been close cooperation between the "Big Four" brotherhoods and the American Federation of Labor, as the brotherhoods had never entered the Federation. Because of their policy of aloofness, the Federation executive officers had often sarcastically referred to the brotherhoods as the "aristocrats of labor."

The Labor Board, which had been criticized for its apparent lethargy up to that time, rose to the emergency and succeeded almost at the last moment in having the strike order withdrawn. While a large part of the credit for finally prevailing upon the brotherhood chiefs to rescind the strike order should go to Mr. Hooper and Mr. McMenimen of the Board, other powerful forces had dominant play. Public opinion was overwhelmingly against the brotherhoods. The five organizations