Pullman's Pay Was Not Cut

A Congressional commission investigated the causes of the Pullman and railway strikes in 1894. The investigation probed into the workings of the Pullman company town and the living conditions, wages, and independence of working men at Pullman.

PULLMAN'S PAY WAS NOT CUT

Sir George Continued to Draw His Usual Dividend and Salary.

ONLY THE LABORERS WERE REDUCED

Marquis Appears before the Strike Commission and Tells of the [Fatherly] Love of the Company for its Employes

CHICAGO, Aug. 27—;George M. Pullman was before the labor commission for nearly three hours this afternoon. Vice President Wickes occupied two hours and will appear again. At the outset of his testimony Mr. Pullman made a careful preliminary statement of his position toward the commission and defining the motives which had moved the company to established its manufacturing plant and homes for workingmen as it had. He dwelt at great length on the motives which actuated the company in building homes for the workingmen at Pullman, declaring that the town had been made so that the best class of mechanics would prefer to live there rather than in any other place. In reply to queries by Chairmen Wright, Mr. Pullman told of the contracts for work undertaken by the company at a loss in order that the men might be kept at work. He said:

"I found we were being underbidden by other companies, even where we had figured to work down to cost. I undertook to make the Pullman company's bids in order to secure the work for our men. My recollection is that the first order of that kind was fifty-five cars on the Long Island railway. Under my instructions the cost of material and labor was figured on the basis of a reduction in wages. Then I had the matter under consideration here and in New York for about two weeks and finally put in a bid for something between $300 and $400 a car below actual cost. I made up my mind that the company would contribute that much rather than have the men idle. Up to the time of the strike we had lost more than $50,000 in pursuing this policy. I explained this personally to the men when they were having their conference with Mr. Wickes. Mr. Heathcote said they wanted the wages of 1893. I said it would be a most unfortunate thing for all of you if the wages of 1893 were restored, because there is no more than six weeks' work in the shop now and we would be unable to get more on a basis of the wages of 1893."

Here Mr. Kernan asked: "Were the books shown to the men?"

"No, they were not, because the men did not apply to see them and the strike came Friday."

"There were other grievances, were there not?"

"There were, but Mr. Wickes and Mr. Brown had assured the men they would take them up and remedy them whenever there was just cause for complaint."

COMPANY HAD DONE WELL.

Turning the subject, Judge Worthington brought out the fact that the company's original stock of $1,000,000 in 1867 had increased to $35,000,000; that the company had paid dividends of 12 per cent during the first two years of its organization; 9½ during the next two years, and 8 percent annually since, and at the same time had accumulated a surplus amounting to $25,000,000.

Referring to the stock of the company, Mr. Pullman said it represented actual cash paid by the stockholders, as the capital was needed and the capital stock was increased for the legitimate business of the company. There was no water in it, and none of it represented dividends.

"Now, Mr. Pullman;" said Commissioner Worthington, "taking the whole year through, has the Pullman made or lost money?"

"It has made money," was the answer.

"You have paid your regular dividends?"

"Yes, sir, 8 per cent."

"That is something like $2,800,000 you have paid out in dividends for the year?"

"Yes, but that includes the latter part of the World's fair season, which was exceptional."

"Let me ask you, Mr. Pullman, whether you do not think a company that pays dividends of $2,800,000 could not afford to share the losses of its employes who have worked for it so long?"

"The manufacturing business is separate from the business of the sleeping car company. I see no reason why I should take the profits of the 4,200 stockholders in the Pullman Sleeping Car company and pay men a higher rate of wages than was paid other parts of the country for the same work, or than was paid by other companies for the same work."

"Has the Pullman company, during the years of its prosperity, ever advanced the wages of its employes voluntarily?"

"I do not know as to that. It has always sought to pay fair wages."

"What do [you] see that is objectionable in submitting a difference like this to arbitration?"

"There are some matters that are proper subjects for arbitration, but I cannot arbitrate on a question where I know the facts to be thus and so. The question as to whether our shops should continue to run at a loss is a thing that could not be arbitrated."

"Why was that impossible?"

"Because it violates the principle that a man has a right to manage is own business."

"Suppose the arbitrators were to say to you, 'We see you're losing money, but these men have been with you a long time; you can afford to share their losses; we think you should at least pay living wages,' what would you say to that?

HAD AN EYE TO PROFIT.

"My point at the time was to work with the man and secure the disbursement of the large sums involved in the contracts and lose money for the company if the men would agree to bear their share in a reduction of 20 to 25 per cent in their wages."

Judge Worthington wanted to know where in it was wrong to take the money of the stockholders and pay higher wages when the management was ready to take contracts at a loss, or take the stockholders' money to keep the plant going.

Mr. Pullman said the execution of the contracts at a loss was better for the plant than to let it lie idle—;

"So," interrupted Mr. eKernan [sic] , "you had that in view as well as the employment of the men. You did not want to stop the plant because you knew that would be a loss to stockholders, and you did not want to scatter your men, because you knew it would be difficult to get a force together that would do economical work?"

"Yes."

"Was your salary reduced, Mr. Pullman?"

The witness replied it had not been.

"Nor the salaries of superintendents or foreman?"

"No."

"Why?"

Mr. Pullman said it was not good policy to reduce the salaries of high officials, because men of their calibre [sic] were not easily replaced.

Mr. uPllman [sic] was then excused, and Vice President Wilkes called. He rehearsed the history of the strike and the part he played in it. Mr. Wickes' evidence was mainly corroborative of the statements made by Mr. Pullman.

CHECKS OF THE RIGHT SIZE.

The strike commissioners devoted a large share of their session today to the examination of Manager E. F. Bryant of the Bank of Pullman. Mr. Bryant appeared with a year or two of type written statistics, but at the request of Commissioner Kernan laid the statement aside and answered questions. He was particular to state that he was not an employe of the Pullman company, as the bank was owned by the Pullman Southern Car company, but later admitted that the latter company was controlled by the palace car company. Mr. Bryant said that the capital stock of the bank is $100,000 and that in January, 1893, the deposits amounted to about $658,000. Two hundred and twenty-five of the depositors at the time were Pullman employes, their [?] averaging $240. In July, 1894, the deposits amounted to $453,000, with only 1,414 employes' accounts, which averaged $270. The witness said that the Pullman workmen were paid in checks. That each month they were given two checks and if they rented company dwellings, one representing the amount of rent due and the other the balance in wages earned. Mr. Bryant was questioned sharply regarding this system of paying, but emphatically stated that here was nothing compulsory about the men paying their rents.

"The checks are only made for convenience of the men," he said, "and they may or may not indorse the rent check back to the company as they choose."

"It is just a sort of gentle reminder that the rent is due," suggested Commissioner Kernan.

"It is simply for the men's convenience," the witness persisted.

The bank manager as then rigidly examined as to the methods of the company for electing back rent.

Mr. Bryant was asked about the case of Jennie Curtis, a Pullman employe, who had claimed that she had been compelled to pay back rent due on the house which her father had occupied pervious to his death. The witness said the company had not compelled Miss Curtis to pay the rent, but admitted that she had done so.

WHAT A PREACHER FOUND.

Rev. Dr. C. H. Eaton of the Church of the Paternity of New York surprised the spectators by his testimony. He asserted that the reports of suffering at Pullman had been grossly exaggerated. He had visited forty houses, he said, and found no destitution and no distress. The men had told him that they had no real grievance, he declared, and had no real cause for striking. Dr. Eaton did not believe that compulsory arbitration would prevent strikes, giving as his reason that one side of such controversies, the laboring men, were not responsible and that any agreement that any agreement that might be reached would be liable to violation. The clergyman said that the proper method of preventing strikes was to build up and improve the character of the workingman. He has found Pullman, he said, a very satisfactory place in that regard, as men's characters there were under good influences.

Big Night at Clifton Hill.

Republicans of the West End club of the Sixth Ward are preparing for a big time this evening. Arrangements have been made for an open-air meeting, at which Hon. John M. Thurston will be the orator. The meeting will be held at the end of the Walnut Hill motor line, corner of Grant street and Military avenue. A platform and seats for a large crowd will be provided. The entire city of Omaha, and especially all the republicans of the northwest part of town, are invited to attend.