[109] An interesting statement of the doctrine of "standardization upward" is to be found in the evidence of Mr. J. H. Thomas (then Assistant Secretary of the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants) before the "Commission of Inquiry into Industrial Agreements" (Great Britain), CD 6953, 1910, Q 13902. Chairman: I think there are eight railways running into Manchester. You were talking about uniformity in such a case. Supposing that five out of the eight railways had a particular rate for a particular class of labor, would you apply that rate to the other three railways? A: It may be that the five should be lower than the three, and in that case, I certainly would not apply the lower to the others. I would apply the higher rate as being the uniform rate; but think that would be got over by the suggestion that I have made whereby the rate would be determined for Manchester, for example, by one authority. Q 13903--I will assume for the moment that the three are less than the five. Would you then make the rate that the five are paying a minimum rate? A: Yes, if the three were less than the five, then the rate of the five would be the rate, but if one was higher than the seven, then the other seven would come up to the one quite naturally. For another good example, see the claim of the Unions in the Engineering and Foundry Trades (Special District Cases), Committee on Production Reports (Great Britain), Vol. II, New Series (545). [110] See pages 138-9, Chapter VII, also pages 192-5, Chapter IX. [111] Justice Higgins of the Commonwealth Court of Australia has dissented from the saving clause idea simply on the ground that if the unions desire standardization and uniformity, they "must take the rough with the smooth," Case of the Federated Shoremen & Packers' Union, page 150, Vol. X, "Commonwealth Arbitration Reports." [112] Compare J. N. Stockett, Jr., "Arbitral Determination of Railway Wages," pages 46-47. CHAPTER IX--THE LIVING WAGE