Q. Looking at the matter from the experience you have, was that plan of retaining more men than you could give full work to a good one?
A. No; it caused dissatisfaction to the men, and caused them to complain, I think unreasonably and unjustly against the company, because the company, so far as it was concerned, was perfectly willing to pay that number of dollars for the service done, but it was distributed among so many that instead of their getting fifty dollars, say, per month, they would get thirty or forty, perhaps. Very many of the oldest men had their sympathies aroused in favor of men, and wanted them retained even if they could not get full time, and asked us to do that thing in many instances; but it resulted just in that discontent I have mentioned. Now we have changed our policy, and endeavor to give our men nearly as full time as we can, and in that give our oldest men and thoroughly loyal men, of course, the preference.
Q. From your experience and knowledge of the number of railroad men in the country, is there a surplus?
A. There is to-day.
Q. There are men out of employment?
A. Yes; the depression in the iron business, and coal business, and lumber business, and everything else, makes less traffic, and a greatly decreased number of trains. This decrease has made a corresponding decrease in the demand for men. We hope one day that it will change, and we can take on all our people and pay them better wages than now; but we cannot do it until the country becomes more prosperous than now.
Q. Did this number of men out of employment have a tendency to produce restlessness among them, and bring on the trouble?
A. There is no question about that. It was the want of employment that made the labor of the country dissatisfied. I think if we could set men to work making a living for themselves and their families, I think there would be no trouble about it. I think it is the best law that can be made.
Q. It was more that, in your judgment, that caused the trouble than low wages?
A. I think so.