144 INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION AND WAGES

tive example for industrial courts, as it were, which might
have been developed to settle judicially industrial disputes
upon the basis of generally accepted rights and principles
affecting all parties concerned. It is to be regretted that
the majority of the members of the Board did not have
the vision to realize the great constructive opportunities
and possibilities which lay before them.
Other concrete judicial precedents, however, were developed
 in connection with the living-wage controversy. On
this question the opinion of Circuit Judge Caldwell in the
case of Ames vs. Union Pacific Railway Co. (62 Fed. Rep.,
p. 15) are particularly pertinent. At the time that Judge
Caldwell rendered his decision the railroad was being
operated by a Receiver. The Court said:
The rate now paid is not higher than the rate paid on other
lines operated through similar country and under like conditions,
 and, in the opinion of the court, is not higher than
it ‘should be for the service rendered. The employes, with
families to support, are seldom more than a few days’ wages
in advance of want; and, if their present wages were materially
 reduced, they could not live. The highest and best
service cannot be expected from men who are compelled to
live in a state of pinch and want.
“A court of equity will not pursue a niggardly and cheeseparing
 policy toward its employes. Intelligence, bodily
vigor, and contentment are wanting among men who are
compelled to work for inadequate wages. Sound public policy,
no less than justice to the men, requires that they be paid
a rate of wages that will enable them to live decently and
comfortably, and school their children. Some corporations
may pay their employes a less rate of wages than is here
indicated, but a court of equity will not follow their bad
example”

Reference has already been made to the decisions of
Mr. Justice Samuel Alschuler, in the Packing House cases.