CONFLICT AND RECONSTRUCTION 65

being exploited by an anthracite coal monopoly, which
absorbed an undue proportion of output, and concluded by
demanding for the employees a greater share in the net
returns of the industry as a reward for increased work
and productivity.?
The representatives of the operators, on the other hand,
took a strictly defensive position. They contended that
wages were adequate and compared favorably with rates
paid by industries in the same territory for similar work.
The award of the neutral chairman of the Commission,
Dr. W. O. Thompson, President of Ohio State University,
ignored, however, all the facts and arguments placed
before it with the exception of the increased cost of living.
Consideration of the exhibits and claims bearing on
“monopoly” and “productive efficiency” were denied on
the ground that such matters were beyond the jurisdiction
of the Commission. No pronouncement was made as to
the “living wage.” A straight increase of 17 per cent. in
rates of pay was awarded. The net result was that the
decision represented no constructive advance in the judicial
determination of wages. As a matter of fact, it was a
reversion to certain pre-war types of arbitration awards,
which entirely disregarded the evidence presented, and
based their findings upon compromises between members
hf the board 2

FepERAL ELECTRIC RAILWAY COMMISSION
Sanctions Living WAGE
Prior to the bituminous and anthracite wage arbitrations,
President Wilson had also appointed a commission. known

1 Proceedings Before the Anthracite Coal Mining Commission, Scranton,
Penna., 1920.
2 Award of the Anthracite Coal Mining Commission, Washington, Govern
ment Printing Office, 1920.