AGAINST RECOMMITTAL 1, Hall, R 2, Barry, D 34, Hall, R 38, O'Brien, R NOT VOTING 24, Fitzpatrick, D North Carolina FOR RECOMMITTAL 3, Barden, D 11, Weaver, D AGAINST RECOMMITTAL 4, Cooley, D 5, Folger, D 6, Durham, D 7, Clark, D 8, Burgin, D 9, Doughton, D 10, Bulwinkle, D North Dakota FOR RECOMMITTAL Ohio FOR RECOMMITTAL 1, Elston, R 2, Hess, R 9, Hunter, D 10, Jenkins, R 14, Harter, D 19, Kirwan, D 20, Sweeney, D 21, Crosser, D AGAINST RECOMMITTAL At L., Marshall, R 3, Routzohn, R 4, Jones, R 5, Clevenger, R 6, Polk, D 7, Brown, R 8, Smith, R 11, Claypool, D 12, Vorys, R 17, McGregor, R 18, Lewis, R 22, Bolton, R NOT VOTING 13, White, R Oklahoma FOR RECOMMITTAL 1, Disney, D 2, Nichols, D 3, Cartwright, D 5, Monroney, D 6, Johnson, D 7, Massingale, D AGAINST RECOMMITTAL 4, Boren, D 8, Ferguson, D NOT VOTING At L., Rogers, D Oregon FOR RECOMMITTAL 1, Mott, R 2, Pierce, D 3, Angell, R Pennsylvania FOR RECOMMITTAL 3, Bradley, D 12, Flannery, D 14, Moser, D 24, Snyder, D 25, Faddis, D 28, Allen, D 32, Eberharter. D 33, McArdle, D 34, Dunn, D AGAINST RECOMMITTAL 1, Sacks, D 2, McGranery, D 4, Sheridan, D 5, Gartner, R 6, Myers, D 8, Wolfenden, R 9, Gerlach, R 10, Kinzer, R 11, Boland, D 13, Fenton, R 17, Ditter, R 29, Rodgers, R NOT VOTING 7, Darrow, R Rhode Island FOR RECOMMITTAL South Carolina FOR RECOMMITTAL AGAINST RECOMMITTAL 6, McMillan, D NOT VOTING 3, Hare, D South Dakota FOR RECOMMITTAL AGAINST RECOMMITTAL Tennessee FOR RECOMMITTAL AGAINST RECOMMITTAL 1, Reece, R 2, Jennings, R 4, Gore, D 5, Byrns, D 6, Courtney, D 7, Pearson, D Texas FOR RECOMMITTAL 3, Beckworth, D 6, Johnson, D 7, Patton, D 8, Thomas, D 9, Mansfield, D 21, South, D AGAINST RECOMMITTAL 4, Rayburn, D Utah FOR RECOMMITTAL Vermont AGAINST RECOMMITTAL Virginia FOR RECOMMITTAL AGAINST RECOMMITTAL 5, Burch, D 6, Woodrum, D 7, Robertson, D 8, Smith, D NOT VOTING 2, Darden, D Washington FOR RECOMMITTAL 1, Magnuson, D 4, Hill, D 5, Leavy, D 15, Rutherford, R 6, Coffee, D 16, Rich, R movable property like trucks for transportation security.” His wire read further: "Of course regulation and taxation of trucks 'for-hire' should be extended to fully cover cost of public interest therein to at least the same degree as the railroads, and if this is done I don't think we need worry about transportation security." Mr. Smith also expanded his ideas on the stand. Although he owns a small fleet of trucks for delivery to customers, it is O. K. with him to raise taxes on trucks if necessary to pay for roads. It was his opinion that trucks having a width of 8 ft. and over "leave a very narrow margin of safety" on Vermont's highways and that the present road system is not capable of sustaining trucks up to the present weight limit. He opined that railroad taxes are relatively unfair and that the carriers should be taxed on "productive capacity." H. England, representing the Barre granite industry, said that in 1939 the district shipped out 87,500 tons of stone by rail and 25,000 tons by truck. While a large number of pieces are too bulky for truck transportation, the latter is used chiefly to satisfy dealers carrying small inventories or requiring immediate delivery. He advocated making the reduction of railroad taxes permanent. T. H. Weed, representing a large dairy concern which ships 11 cars of milk daily out of the state and brings in supplies and packaging by rail, asserted that he used no trucks for hauls between country plants and metropolitan centers and that railroad service is excellent. Upon request, he said, the carriers will place late milk cars on through passenger trains. A grain dealer, who operates three delivery trucks, expressed the belief that Vermont highways are unfit for large trucks. He said the cost of getting in his products would "materially increase" if the railroads ceased to exist. F. M. Dano, a livestock dealer, and president of the Vergennes Chamber of Commerce, saw irony in the fact that "the town shares the tax on a farmer's ox and his ass but not on his truck." He claimed that Vermont roads were not designed for heavy trucks, pointing out that when the Central Vermont put on bigger locomotives it laid heavier steel. He said his organization was 100 per cent loyal to the railroad through the Rutland Railroad Co-operating Traffic Association and that "we have received full co-operation from the Rutland management." L. Stevens, president, Vermont Permanent Roads Association, appeared as a private citizen who has lived for 50 years in the state and placed on the record two personal letters which he received from a close friend of his and a born Vermonter-Daniel Willard. The letters of the Baltimore & Ohio president told of the competitive handicaps which the railroads face but looked forward to an enlightened public opinion by education. Mr. Stevens hoped the commission would consider the viewpoint of such an "honored, honest, respected man." Bill still appears to be dead but labor groups are ARNINGS from House Leader WASHINGTON, D. C. men & Enginemen; J. A. Phillips, president, Order of W burn, Senator Wheeler and other authoritative Railway Conductors; A. F. Whitney, president, Brother sources that recommittal of S. 2009 would mean its death are being borne out in developments since May 9 when the House of Representatives by a vote of 209 to 182 sent that omnibus transportation bill back to conference with instructions directing the House conferees to insist upon restoration of the toughened-up version of the Harrington "labor-protection" amendment and the Wadsworth and Jones amendments. Conferee Lea, chairman of the House committee on interstate commerce, stated this week that he had no present plans to seek a resumption of conferences with the Senate group, while Senator Wheeler has reiterated the view which he expressed prior to the House action to the effect that the latter comprised a writing of the bill's death warrant. Also, Senator Reed, Republican of Kansas, has indicated that he thought there was little hope of reviving the measure. The foregoing appears to be the situation as this issue of Railway Age goes to press, despite this week's Washington meetings of the Railway Labor Executives' Association, which have given rise to reports that the six brotherhood chiefs who were major factor in the success of the recommittal move are now endeavoring to breathe new life into the measure. Among the matters before the R. L. E. A. meeting was a movement to work out some sort of a proposal which might induce the conferees to resume work on the bill. In this connection it is understood that delegations from the labor group called on representatives of the Association of American Railroads, and also contacted members of the conference committee. The A. A. R. is understood to have turned a cold shoulder to suggestions that the railroads might be induced to go along with a compromise "labor-protection" proposal if it were anything like the Harrington amendment; while the conferees approached were unimpressed, at least with the initial overtures of the labor emissaries. Rail Labor Opposition Killed Bill Meanwhile there seems to be general agreement among informed observers that the push which killed the bill came as a result of the eleventh-hour action of the six transportation brotherhoods, which lined up with the waterway bloc and groups claiming to speak for agriculture. Had these railway labor organizations persevered in what the conferees had been led to believe was their position in support of the conference report, there is little doubt that the recommittal motion would have been defeated and the conference report adopted. The support which the report drew from the other railway labor organizations led by George M. Harrison, president of the Brotherhood of Railway Clerks, and B. M. Jewell, president of the Railway Employees' Department, American Federation of Labor, was just not sufficient to counteract the attack of transportation-union leaders. The latter are: A. Johnston, grand chief engineer, Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers; D. B. Robertson, president of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Fire hood of Railroad Trainmen; T. C. Cashen, president, Switchmen's Union of North America; and V. O. Gardner, president, Order of Railroad Telegraphers. As noted in previous issues, Mr. Robertson, with Messrs. Harrison and Jewell, was a member of President Roosevelt's committee-of-six out of the recommendations of which S. 2009 grew. With reference to his aforementioned lack of disposition to seek a resumption of conferences at this time, Chairman Lea explained that his committee has before it other matters which are expected to keep the members busy for the time being. Also, the chairman is understood to feel that it would be futile to attempt to get the Senate conferees to agree to follow the House's instructions to restore the controversial amendments; and even if such agreement could be reached in conference, new opposition to the measure would arise among those who regard the amendments as destructive. At least two of the Senate conferees are reported to have served notice that they will not accept the Harrington amendment either in its original or its present form-the most they would be disposed to do would be to write the Washington Agreement into the bill. Bill Couldn't Hurt Labor There has, of course, been no authoritative explanation of the change of front on the part of the six transportation brotherhoods, although there has been some speculation in that connection. It has been suggested that President Whitney of the B. of R. T. won what would be appraised in railway labor circles as a victory when the conferees eliminated the consolidation provisions entirely; and that the leaders of the other transportation brotherhoods decided that they, too, must get credit for having done "something" for the "boys." Thus the demand for recommittal in which they were joined by Mr. Whitney. Other speculations run to predictions that a deal was made for the waterway bloc's support of future "make-work" bills in which railway labor may be interested. Certainly, railway labor came off with no present gain, because any effect on employees of the bill's enactment could only have been favorable. To the extent that the bill's water-carrier provisions tended to eliminate destructive competition, the result would be a preservation of railroad jobs; and so far as consolidations are concerned the bill did not propose to change the present law-so employees could have been no worse off in that connection. The foregoing point of view was developed by Conferee Wolverton, Republican of New Jersey, in the course of his speech against recommittal, when he reminded his colleagues that "railroad labor stands to lose more under present conditions because of unregulated water carriers than by consolidation of railroads." Previously Mr. Wolverton had referred to the action of the six transportation brotherhoods as "the most unusual action of labor representatives that I have ever experienced." "This action," he went on, "is all the more strange and unexplainable in view of the fact that each of the brotherhoods these representatives speak for has, at every annual convention in the last 10 or more years, discussed and favored legislation that would bring water carriers under regulation. And now the bill which seeks to do this thing is being opposed by them. And, bear in mind, that it is being opposed by them not because of what is in the bill, but something that is totally foreign to watercarrier regulation, is not in the bill, namely, power and authority for railroads to consolidate. Thus, because the conferees eliminated the most fear-provoking provision in the bill, from the standpoint of railroad labor, we now find certain brotherhood representatives joining hands with water carriers to recommit the bill and thereby create the possibility of no legislation to regulate water carriers. My astonishment at this strange and unusual action cannot be adequately expressed in words." Debate Time Equally Divided The two hours of debate got under way after nearly an hour of wrangling over who should control the time. There was no dispute over the equal division of the time between those favoring adoption of the conference report and those favoring recommittal; but there was objection to leaving Representative Wadsworth, Republican of New York, in control of the opposition's time-sticklers for form insisted that Chairman Lea should control all the time. That was what finally happened with the understanding that Mr. Lea would allot the opposition's time in the light of promises made by Mr. Wadsworth when he thought he would control the recommitters' hour. Majority Leader Rayburn had never heard "so much fuss raised about tweedle dee and tweedle dum." It was just before the motion to recommit was offered by Mr. Wadsworth that Mr. Rayburn issued his aforementioned warning that recommittal would perhaps mean death of the bill. "It does appear to me," he said, "that if this bill is recommitted there will be no legislation upon this subject during the current year and these amendments that various gentlemen are talking about will never come back, and if the bill is recommitted they will die with it. It is my opinion that there is so much good in this bill, so much that is necessary to have a coordinated, workable transportation system, that we are taking upon ourselves a great responsibility by casting a vote that will kill all railroad legislation at this session of the Congress." But the recommitters remained unimpressed; as previously identified by Conferee Cole, Democrat of Maryland, they were by and large opponents of any legislation at all, and there was nothing in the fight to recommit "except the adroitness of a group of members opposed to the bill in most any form." The same view was expressed by Conferee Bulwinkle, Democrat of North Carolina, when he recalled that of the 12 or 13 members speaking in favor of recommittal, all but two had voted against the bill last July when it contained the Harrington, Wadsworth and Jones amendments. While he conceded that he had thus acted last July, Representative Harrington, Democrat of Iowa, sponsor of the Harrington amendment, guaranteed this time to vote for the bill if it came back with the House amendments reinserted. Conferee Crosser Voted to Recommit The highlight of the vote on the recommittal motion. was perhaps the "aye" of Conferee Crosser, Democrat of Ohio. All other conferees voted against recommittal and all others, except Representative Holmes, Republican of Massachusetts, spoke against the Wadsworth motion. Seated directly across the aisle from Chairman Lea, Mr. Crosser seemed to be following the roll call with intense interest; he perked up a bit as the clerk reached the C's and came through with his "aye" when his name was called. His adverse vote had been anticipated by Conferee Cole who said in his above-mentioned talk: "We have left the conference hand in hand, a united group, until a little while ago I heard that one member would likely vote against what has signature recommended. Such is his privilege. For him I have nothing but the greatest respect and regard, but with that exception we ask as your conferees to let this bill become law and renew your fight for certain changes here and there in the form of special legislation dealing with those isolated subjects.' Chairman Lea opened the debate with a 25-minute talk against recommittal. Developing his argument along the lines of the extension of remarks he put into the May 3 Congressional Record, as noted in last week's issue, he asserted that no proposal was made in the recommittal motion "to strike a single sentence from the bill"-the only proposals are "to change the present law." He identified the source of the "whole trouble" in the inter-union fight as to what should be done about the Harrington amendment, which he called “about as wild a proposition as this House was ever asked to approve." Mr. Lea proceeded to highlight his arguments against the Jones and Wadsworth amendments before yielding to Representative Wadsworth who based his opposition to the bill "largely" on the ground that he could see no necessity for regulating water carriers. Mr. Wadsworth was not there to abuse the railroads whose friend he said he has been "on many occasions;" but he was disposed to insist on the Miller-Wadsworth amendment as a provision conceived in "a desperate attempt to leave the door open just a little way to the little man who wants to engage in water transportation." The New Yorker was followed by Representative Warren, Democrat of North Carolina, who warned those favoring the bill that it would become an issue in the next campaign. As he recalled it "the greatest political graveyard the House has probably ever known followed the passage of the Esch-Cummins Act, and those who voted for it were swept into oblivion." He pre Next came the aforementioned talk of Conferee Cole, followed by that of Congressman Harrington who argued for his labor-protection amendment. Representative Van Zandt, Republican of Pennsylvania, then came along with a warning that "the crucial hour has arrived for transportation legislation in this Congress." dicted that if the bill were recommitted "railroad legislation for this Congress and the next few years is out of the question." Representative Jones, Democrat of Texas, spoke in favor of his amendment; while Representative Culkin, Republican of New York, urged recommittal and expressed the hope that thereafter the bill, which he called a "Trojan horse," would "never again see the light of day." Halleck Calls for Consistency Conferee Halleck, Republican of Indiana, stressed the fact that the country is committed to a policy of regulating transport agencies; and thus he saw no reason why it is not fair to extend such regulation to water carriers. "The strange thing about it," he said, "is that some of the people who would vote the quickest to keep away from regulation of water carriers seem to be the most intent here today to clamp down on the railroads the ultimate degree of regulation." After a four-minute talk in favor of recommittal by Representative Bland, Democrat of Virginia, the aforementioned speech of Conferee Wolverton was heard. Then came Representative Hope, Republican of Kansas, ranking minority member of the House committee on agriculture, who did not agree that farmers were opposed to the bill. "Anything which will help the railroads of this country to render better and more efficient service to farmers will help agriculture," he said. Representative Dondero, Republican of Michigan, was opposed to the bill because it seeks to change the policy of keeping "free from regulation water transportation facilities for our people." Representative Kleberg, Democrat of Texas, called the conference report "a discrimination bill rather than a transportation bill;" while Representative Alexander, Republican of Minnesota, was opposed because of the "attempted extension of bureaucracy." Meanwhile it was difficult for Representative Sparkman, Democrat of Alabama, to understand "how any nation . . . blessed with a great inland waterway system. . . could take action . . . to cut out completely the rights that the public is entitled to in the enjoyment Commenting on the House's action at his May 9 press conference, Jesse H. Jones, federal loan administrator, said that improved conditions in the railroad industry had not lessened the need for the legislation. The bill, if passed, he added, would have helped save some roads from reorganization. But, Mr. Jones went on, "it has always been hard to get railroad legislation in Congress. There are so many different interests to satisfy. It shouldn't be, but it is. Such action is not encouraging to the railroads." Meanwhile the loan administrator pointed out that S. 2009's provision whereby the limit of Reconstruction Finance Corporation loans and commitments to railroads would be increased from $350,000,000 to $500,000,000 in addition to loans and commitments made prior to January 31, 1935, and renewals of loans and commitments so made is embodied also in S. 3938 and H. R. 9687, pending bills to amend the R. F. C. Act. of that inland waterway system for the transportation New Books... Proceedings Association of American Railroads, Mechanical Di- Conferee Bulwinkle took the balance of the time allotted for the debate to make his above-mentioned remarks against recommittal. It was during the course. of Mr. Bulwinkle's talk that Majority Leader Rayburn arose to make his prediction that recommittal would probably mean the death of the measure. The debate closed in a heated exchange between Mr. Bulwinkle and Representative Brewster of Maine. After that Mr. Wadsworth came forward to offer his motion to recommit, on which Mr. Lea demanded the roll call. The Preliminary Barrage On the day prior to the debate several pages of the Congressional Record were filled with a preliminary barrage laid down by the bill's opponents. This material included a statement from President Robertson of the B. of L. F. & E. who commented on a letter written to members of the conference committee by Judge R. V. Fletcher, vice-president and general counsel of the Association of American Railroads, after the position of the transportation unions in favor of recommittal had become known. Also, there was reproduced a letter written by President Whitney of the B. of R. T. to Chairman Lea, wherein the former undertook to reconcile his position in favor of recommittal with that statement of his April 29 telegram which said that the elimination of the consolidation provisions had removed the source of the B. of R. T. opposition to S. 2009. Other documents inserted included communications from various representatives of the transportation brotherhoods urging recommittal, The sessions of the Operations and Maintenance Department, Mechanical Division, held at the Hotel Commodore, New York, June 28-30, are covered in the 1938-39 proceedings, also recommendations, letter ballots and other transactions for the two years. The subjects report on at the New York meeting were lubrication of cars and locomotives; specifications for materials; wheels; brakes and brake equipment; arbitration; prices for labor and materials; tank cars; loading rules; couplers and draft gears; car construction; reciprocating steam locomotives, and utilization of locomotives. Bound in at the back cover of the proceedings are Summary Sheets of Operating Statistics, Class I Railroads, Year 1938 compared with Year 1937, which formed a part of the report of the Committee on Utilization of Locomotives. Proceedings Car Department Officers' Association, 1939.—Published by the Association-Secretary-treasurer, F. L. Kartheiser, chief clerk-mechanical, Chicago, Burlington & Quincy, Chicago. 251 pages. Price $2 (including membership fee). The proceedings of the annual convention of the Car Department Officers' Association, held at the Hotel Sherman, Chicago, October 17, 18 and 19, 1939, contain the reports of the committees on Freight and Passenger-Car Construction and Maintenance; Shop Operation, Facilities and Tools; Passenger Train Car Terminal Handling; Lubricants and Lubrication; Use of Freight Equipment for Loading Contaminating Commodities; Interchange; Loading Rules; Billing for Car Repairs, and Painting. Included also in the proceedings are the addresses by D. J. Sheehan, superintendent motive power, C. & E. I.; C. H. Dietrich, executive vice-chairman, Freight Claim Division, Association of American Railroads; LeRoy Kramer, vice-president, General American Transportation Company, and L. W. Baldwin, chief executive officer, Missouri Pacific Lines, Mr. Baldwin's address was presented before a joint meeting of the Coordinated Associations-the Master Boiler Makers' Association, the Railway Fuel and Traveling Engineers' Association, the Locomotive Maintenance Officers' Association, and the Car Department Officers' Association. "GRAND" AND "TRUNK" will be the Christian names of twin sons recently born to Mr. and Mrs. W. L. Scott, if Mister has his own way. Mr. Scott, who is a Grand Trunk-Canadian National traffic representative at New York, has definitely decided on these two names and is trying to convince his wife to agree, according to the Canadian National "Weekly News Letter." NEWS No Explosives Blew Up in '39 Explosives bureau reports best year on record in dangerous articles handling Total losses in the transportation of explosives and other dangerous articles on railroads in the United States and Canada were the lowest in 1939 of any year since the Bureau of Explosives, Association of American Railroads, was organized, according to the report of W. S. Topping, chief inspector, for 1939. In the transportation of so-called "dangerous explosives" there were no explosions, no deaths and no personal injuries during the year. Including all other dangerous articles under the jurisdiction of the Bureau, there were 74 fires, 3 deaths and 22 persons injured during the year. There were also 32 cases when explosives were involved in what the Bureau calls "near accidents," of which 10 were instances where damage to containers could definitely be charged against carriers' rough handling of cars while the remaining instances were charged to shippers' failure to properly load and brace their explosives and failure of the railroads to properly prepare cars for loading. A comparative summary showing transportation losses chargeable to explosives and other dangerous articles shows that in 1939 a total of 842 accidents occurred involving a property loss of $114,477 (final corrected figure), the lowest property loss figure since the Bureau of Explosives started operation in 1907. The 1939 record compares with 853 accidents and property loss of $312,741 for 1938. A table listing the particular causes of accidents under the Bureau's jurisdiction indicates that derailment or collision proved to be the chief source of loss, amounting to $86,587 out of the total loss of $114,477. Improper loading or defective containers, the second greatest cause of loss, accounted for $11,163. As of the close of the year, the staff of the Bureau comprised 16 field work inspectors, a new man having been added during the year. Railroad membership of the Bureau increased from 323 in 1938 to 402 in 1939. Given special treatment in Mr. Topping's report were the tank car department and the current revision of regulations. He pointed out that the tank car committee of the Bureau transmitted for comments and suggestions a total of 380 applications for approval of designs, materials and construction of new cars and of Thumbs Down on Trainload Gasoline A proposed trainload rate for gasoline from southwest points to 12 north mid-west points was rejected at a meeting of the Western Trunk Line Committee and the Southwestern Freight Bureau at Chicago on May 8. The proposed rate, endorsed by several independent refineries and the Midland Co-Operative Wholesale, was 15 cents a hundred pounds less than the present group three rate and carried a minimum of 40 cars. changes in existing cars. Reports from the committee show that the railroads were obliged to transfer the contents of 184 tank cars during the year due to defects. A special table in the report indicates that the hazard of bottom outlet failures has been materially reduced in recent years by the increase in the number of tank cars equipped with valves of the screw-closure type; cars built prior to 1927 were equipped with discharge outlets of the springclosure type. Property loss from reported tank car leakages due to bottom outlet failure, for example, declined from a high of $348,185 in 1926 to $9,562 in 1939. The report points out that the Bureau has been preparing a proposed general revision of regulations which will come before the I. C. C. very shortly. The revision is being made to embrace in simple form new rules and modifications made necessary by improvements in shipping containers. Since the last revision in 1930, it has been necessary for the Bureau to issue some 18 supplements, which have caused confusion. Pullman Car Named for George Westinghouse A standard Pullman sleeping car named for George Westinghouse, inventor of the airbrake, was placed in regular service on May 9 on the Pennsylvania's "Clevelander" at a special ceremony at Pennsylvania station, Pittsburgh, Pa. Presidents of the representative veteran employees' associations of Westinghouse Airbrake Company and the Westinghouse Electric & Manufacturing Co., took part in the ribbon cutting that formally started the car on its way. This is the same station from which the first train to be equipped with airbrakes started on its famed demonstration run over the P. R. R. Panhandle division to Steubenville, Ohio, on April 15, 1869. Seek to Hike Pay to Jobless Carriers agree to some increase, but want assess ments cut too Public hearings before a Senate interstate commerce subcommittee consisting of Senators Wagner of New York, Minton of Indiana, and Schwartz of Wyoming, Democrats, and Gurney of South Dakota, Republican, and Shipstead of Minnesota, Farmer-Laborite, got under way on May 13, on two bills recently introduced, S. 3920 and S. 3925, both intended to increase benefit payments under the Railway Unemployment Insurance Act. As pointed out in last week's issue, S. 3920, offered by Senator Wagner, represents the views of railroad labor; while the other bill, S. 3925, introduced by Senator Gurney, embodies the views of railroad management. Briefly, the philosophy of the two bills may be said to agree on the basic tenets that the reserve fund for the payment of benefits to unemployed workers is too large and that the amount of benefits should be increased. Testimony at the initial hearing brought out the fact that the labor bill would preserve the present three per cent tax on the payroll of the carriers and would increase present benefits by some 115 per cent of the present rate; while the management bill would provide for a rating system so that if the employment record of the railroads remains good the rate of the tax may be gradually reduced as is the practice in some of the states. Moreover, the management bill would increase the present benefit payments by about 25 per cent. The first witness for the labor organizations was Charles M. Hay, counsel for the Railway Labor Executives Association, who, after outlining the history of the present law, told the subcommittee that the real purpose of S. 3920 was to liberalize the present law and the administration of the law. He also declared that the present three per cent tax is not only adequate to sustain the increased benefits, but is more than adequate to support the present payments as is evidenced by the fact that there is now more than $125,000,000 of a surplus in the unemployment insurance account in the United States Treasury. After declaring that the present benefits are “indefensibly low" and that the railroad working men demand a liberalization of the law, Mr. Hay asked the committee |