Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1891-11-19

" tne party charged. Inc 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 il 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 charges9 ANY member" When
Is 1t the constitution SAYS that charges may
! be preferred lat a stated meeting OF The
board of arbitration" Who Is it that the
constitution says can try member The
board shall proceed at once in the trial. :"
Who is 1t that the constitution says can in
iict punishment And intiict 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 lat
stated meeting of the board of arbitra-
ton" mean the state Alliance2 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 infiict such punishment onoeither or
both OF the parties as the board may de-
termine' mean that the state Alliance can
infict punishment? What is the state Al
lance but representive body of Alliance
men who are chosen to represent the Al
lance membership in the state meetingl
Yet we find it resolving itself into judi
ciary body for the purpose it seems of pre-
ferrlug 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
signers of the Austin manifesto and the
managers of the Farmers World2 The
10 4 llI9upsa did hut no. ado Of
luton. Is resolution charges and specif-
cations? BY no means. Is the state ALI
ance as d body or otherwise ''any member
OF the order!' Certainly no one with as
much brains as you could blow through the
stem Of u mosquitoes leg into chiggers
eye would for one moment contend that il
was. Hence we are forced to the conclu-
sion that the state Alliance as body or
otherwise had no authority 10 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 q
crime for any member TO be connected with
the management of the publication OF a
newspaper, or for few who were chosen
to represent their constituencies in the law
making power of the state to issue a mani
festo against the Alliance steering commit
tee for attempting 10 steer the order into
the pockets and control of corporate power2
presume that none will be so arrogant az
n ~ .fsNii ha aarS Of -1+
Alliance in declaring the acts of said mem
bers TO bs crime and fn4dsclaring them no
longer membership 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 a violation of Alliance princi-
pies. IL is the duty ard the right OF the
law making power of the order to say
what are crimes, and of the judiciary body
("the board of arbitration") to see that the
mem berSs respect and obey the same and it
is thed4tN OfAthe judiciary BODY only to A
deefarethat to be crime that is AplainlR
4ade$o by the constitution and laws of the |
erdert Surely none would claim to himself
the right so to do, except those whO'voted1orsI
ths adoption gofs the resolution that declared I
the actsrof said members to be a crime and |
said that they were 10 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 obliga- |
ton, and would be fell destroyer of |
the right of subordinate lodges to |
regulate and control their membership. |
The private members are only amenable to |
the subordinate lodges in which they hold |
their membership, and no other lodge has |
any constitutional authority to declare any |
member not in good standing, because this |
would be an infringement on the right of |
lodges to regulate and control |
their members and confer uSurpation of |
power on a representative body of Alliance |
men not delegated to them by the constitu-
ton. They having no right under the con-
stitution to receive applicants for member
ship, that right alone belonging to the sub
ordinate lodges, and pray will you what
right has a body of Alliance men that are
not empowered to receive applicants for
to declare those that have
been granted membership by the
proper lodges not members in
good standings And pray will you what
aw of Alliance etiquette is there that
would justify The state Alliance in deleeat-
ng the authority to the state president to
evoke the charter of any subordinate lodge
because it had refused to expel a member
whom the state Alliance without authority
declared a member not in good standing.
t'raternally yours, X. c. BRAGG.