Page 8
University Daily Kansan
Monday, April 27, 1964
Court Denies Attempt To Alter Rail Ruling
WASHINGTON — (UPI) — The Supreme Court refused today to examine the Railroad Arbitration Board decision that could eventually eliminate 30,000 firemen's jobs and leave the status of 19,000 other crewmen in doubt.
The brief order lets stand as final a decision upholding the board handed down Feb. 20, 1964, by the U.S. Court of Appeals here. Earlier, the unions had also lost in Federal District Court.
Justice Arthur J. Goldberg, a former Secretary of Labor during the period of the dispute, did not participate in today's action.
CONGRESS CREATED the special seven-man arbitration panel last August in order to head off a railroad strike. The panel was to look into two matters: Use of firemen on locomotives in freight and yard service; and the size of crews outside the engine cab (sometimes referred to as the "crew consist" issue).
The panel's judgment, announced Nov. 26, 1963, allowed the carriers to
start reducing the number of firemen's jobs, with most of the cutback resulting from unfilled vacancies. A formula was worked out for the crew consist problem.
Meantime the unions and the carriers negotiated on other matters not covered by the arbitrators' decision. Last week President Johnson announced that agreement had been reached on those issues to fend off another threatened strike.
Hobbesian Theory Challenged
THE DISPUTE HAS been going on since late 1559.
In their appeal to the Supreme Court, the unions contended, among other things, that the arbitration deprived them of their rights without the "due process of law" guaranteed in the Constitution and that the act passed by Congress did not provide the board with sufficient guidance.
They said Federal District Judge Alexander Holtzoff should have convened a special three-judge federal court to hear their challenge under the Constitution.
Philosophy students and professors challenged the logical basis of Lindeley lecturer Roderick Chisholm's theory of pleasure and desire Thursday night at the Philosophy Club meeting.
roderick Chisholm, professor of philosophy at Brown University, said a new basis for moral action must be found "because, if the Hobbesian account is true, people are not morally responsible for the things they do." The Hobbesian view holds that human behavior is determined by past events. This is the view science is said to take by many authorities.
Prof. Chisholm, an acknowledged
Close Call
TUCSON, Ariz.—(UPI)—Patrolman Gerald Halversion is thankful that the pastor of the Open Door Baptist Church doesn't aim at prowlers. Halperson parked his patrol car and walked down an alley to answer a complaint of a barking dog at the parsonage of the church. Suddenly a shot rang out. Halversion scurried back to the street and contacted the Rev. Audrey Corder at the front door of the parsonage. With smoking shotgun in hand, the minister told the policeman he just scared off a prowler by firing the weapon
such, and he does not prefer not-'h' as such to 'h' as such."
Prof. Edward S. Robinson, professor of philosophy, objected to the use of "as such." He said he understood very well what it meant to prefer one thing to another. But, he said, he would be "bewildered" if he were asked if he preferred one thing "as such" to another thing "as such."
Prof. Chisholm replied that there was "no way of making a choice if one did not prefer one thing, "as such." From there, the discussion reved up to a high level philosophical dispute.
leader in analytic philosophy. contends that there is no logical or casual connection between pleasure and desire, therefore determined behavior is not possible.
The definition of "indifferent," for instance, was: "He is indifferent toward 'h' as such, provided: he does not prefer 'h' as such to not-h' as
TWELVE DEFINITIONS of terms used in his theory were cast in the form of logical propositions by Prof. Chisholm. Afterwards, club members and professor parried with the visiting philosopher as to what the definitions meant.
HIGH FASHION FOR YOUR SPRINGTIME!
Swimwear styles that put all the others to shame.