Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1891-11-12
LETTER THE ALLIANCE.
Judge X. C. Bragg Uses the Constitution
to Define the Authority OF the
Alliance.
BoNHAM. TEX, Nov. 10, 1891.

To the Alliance Membership:
BRETHREN Il Will again use the press,
and in this letter show and that by the con-
stitutiOn that the state Alliance hau no au-
thority, either expressed or implied, to pre-
fer charges against or to declare any mem
Der not in good standing, and in order to
make this so plain that all, even those not
members, may understand, | viii here
quote the clause of the constitution III re-
gard to charges and specifications at length.
The constitution reads: when any Off
Ger or member shall be guilty of
conduct unbecoming an Alliance
man or VIXEN personal differences
exist between members and after reason
able efforts cannot be amicaably adjusted,
an officer may be impeached, charges and
specifications in writing may be preferred
by any member at q stated meeting of the
board of arbitration, and when charges are
preferred copy of the charges and speciti-
cations shall be furnished by the lecturer
to the party charged. The chairman of the
board shall notify the parties at variance
in writing of the time and place at which
they will take in writing all testimony OF
persons not members of the Alliance. and
report the same at next meeting OF the
board. and upon the report and such other
testimony as may be had in the Alliance,
the board shall proceed at once in the trial,
and infiict such punishment on either or
both of the parties as the board may deter
mine
Who is it that the constitution says may
prefer charges? Any member" When
is it the constitution says that charges may
be preferred lat a stated meeting of the
board of arbitration Who Is 1t that the
constitution says can try member! The
board shall proceed at once in the trial.
Who is it that the constitution says can in
fict punishment And infict such
punishment on either or both of the parties
as the board may determine.
Does the language ANY member" mean
the state Alliance. Does the language ''at
a stated meeting of the board of arbitra-
tom mean the state Alliance? Does the
language the board shall proceed at once
in the trial. mean the state Alliance shall
proceed in the trial, and does the language
land inflict such punishment onueither or
both of the parties as the board may de-
termine'; mean that the state Alliance can
infiict punishment? What is the state Al
lance but represenuive body of Alliance
men who are chosen to represent the AL
lance membership in the state meeting?
Yet we find it resolving itself into i judi
ciary body for the purpose it seems of pre-
ferring charges and the trial of members OF
the order who are not members OF that
body of Alliance men.
Who preferred the charges against the
siguers of the Austin manifesto and the
llldHdSeES VI LLt L NoiIuE HC
state Alliance did by the adoption of a reso-
luton. Is a resolution charges and specih-
cations' BY no means. Is the state Ali
ance as a body or otherwise ''any member
of the order2' Certainly no one with as
much brains as you could blow through the
stem of mosquitoes leg into chigger's
eve would for one moment contend that it
was. Hence we are forced to the conclu-
sion that the state Alliance as d body or
otherwise had no authority to prefer
charges against or to declare any member
of the order not in good standing, and that
in so doing they violated every principle of
the order, clearly intending if possible
thereby to do fragrant violence to the per-
sonal character and standing of the signers
of the Austin manifesto and
the members connected with
the publication of the Farmers
World, and to fatally stab and drive from
the order all who would not submit to the
Alliance sub-treasury scheme. What
clause in the constitution that from its
reading one would even infer that it was
crime for any member to be connected with
the management of the publication of
newspaper, or for few who were chosen
to represent their constituencies in the law
making power Of the state to issue mani
festo against the Alliance steering commit
tee for attempting 10 steer the order into
the pockets and control of corporate powerT
L presume lHdt none Will De So arrogant dS
to attempt to justify the acts of the, state
Alliance in declaring the acts of said mem
bers to be crime and in declaring them no
longer members in good standing. when the
constitution and the law-making power
(sub-Alliances) have never yet said that
the acts of said members were criminal or
in any way violation of Alliance princi-
pies. 1t is the duty and the right of the
law-making power of the order to say
what are crimes, and of the Judiciary body
('.the board of arbitration'o to see that the
members respect and obey the same, and it
is the duty of the judiciary body only to
declare that TO be a crime that is plainly
made SO by the constitution and laws of the
order. Surely none would claim to himself
the right SO to do.except those who voted for
the adoption of the resolution that declared
the acts of said members to be crime, and
said that they were no longer members in
good standing, because it would be judicial
legislation. pure, simple and destructive OF
the great and fundamental principles of the
order of equal and exact justices to all
classes and special privileges to none, and
would not be in keeping with the guarantee
We were given when taking the obliSa-