New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1893-04-14
A BROTHERHOOD CONTRACT.
JUDGE SPEER'S REASONS FOR ORDERING
THAT 1T BE MAINTAINED.
eTRIKES AND BoYCOTTS on RAILROAD AND
TELEGRAPH LINES. HOWEVER. HELD
TO DE UNLAWFUL.


TELEGRAPH LINES. HOWEVER, HELD
TO DE UNLAWFUL.
Much attention has already been paid In the public
prints and In the Senate OF the Cnitcd states the
decision rendered saturday last by the Hon. Emory
epeer, United States Circuit Court Judge In the case OF
the brotherhood OF Locomotive Engineers against the
Receiver OF the Central Railroad and Banking Com
pany Of Georgia. The suit was brought by com
mit'ee OF the Brotherhood, on petition. 10 compel the
receiver TO make contract with the brotherhood.
The salient portions Of Judge Speels decision arc as
follows:
Cases are frequent persons intrusted with ,o'
porate properties applied the courts for the pre-
ventlon redress Of grievances threatened or hlcteu
by labor organizations. This is the first instance, of
which we have information where members OF such
association have by concerted action In an orderly
way sought the arbitramcnt OF court TO have settled
controversy relative TO the wecr and conditions OF 'he
employment. The members Of the Brotherhood Of
Locomotive Engineers who have presented this petition
have proper standing court There are $50 locomo-
engineers employment OF the receiver upon the
vafous divisions Of the Central Kailicad ana
Danking Company of Georgia. VI hcsc' III
are members OF the brotherhood Of Locomotive En-.
gineers and the petitioners committee from that
membership They recitc in their petition the facts that
they have for several years working under con-
tract made between general committee OF the Brothef'
bood and the officers Of the railroad Since the first daY
Of December 1891 they been working under con-
tract copy OF which they attach and since that time
properties have been inrued 70 the contro oil ush
NJ. Conner. the receiver Of the court TIL. con'rSt
expired on the first day Of December. 1892 few days
prior that tmo they notice to George D. wadey
general superintendent OF the company that they desieo
changes in the contract They state furcr that
tay have remained in the service Of the company al
though tho superintendent and the receiver have refused
TO enter into any new contract or consider the old con-
tract longer In force unless ordered TO 90 by thc
court.
Pending the adjustment which was
nv If n
tract which entitled receiver notice for that perod
and Of which he claimed the benefit the court mas con
contract In force We have also causeu sc'er
conferences between the receiver and the engineers win
IN. hone that an amicabc agreement night follow This
expectation been defeated by strike on the savannah
Americas and Montgomery Railroad the refusal OF one OF
the engineers to haul tra to when car Oh a' CONE
pany attached his immediate discharge ana the tfic
tion between the receiver and the engineers which re-
suited thcrefrom. The engineers then applet 10 the
court . &. end they pray that the receiver be
directed 10 continue the contract under which they
working at the time the receiver was appointed SUD-
feet such notifications and changes may DO made by
the order Of the court.
Much Of the receivers answer is an argument
against propety and policy of contracts OF any char
officers of railway corporations Sni tho
representatives OF lapor organizations The gravity ana
importance Of the considerations thus presented ar; e
ceedngly greet. The control. under circumstances
by contracts between representatives OF inc
immense values invested with corporations engaged In
the public duty Of transportation and the laboers EN-
Moved i'm the same service, will doubtless appear to many
rs novel and dangerous 1t is we'll however, to consider
proper provision. by appeal to the courts IN inc
frequent and destructive conflicts between organized capt
and organized labor will not afford the simplest most
satisfactory and effective method for the settlement o.
such controversies Is 1t not the only method By which
the public and indeed parties themselves can be pro-
tected from the inevitable hardship AMI loss which al
must endure from the frequently recurring st'kes'
will not be wise those engaged with the maintenance
of pubie order TO ignore immensely OF the changes
of the
occasoned by the phenomenal development OF commerce
and the prevalence Of labor organizations But
whether facts VIII JUSTIFY govern
mental control Of contracts essential the uninterrupted
Transportation of the country which the public is 50
vitality concerned, it is clear that where the properly u
railway other corporations Is being aohnsefeu os
receiver under the experimenting power OF court OF
equity it competent for the court to adjust dhcus De-
tween the receiver and his employees which IN The absence
Of such adjustment would tend to in!ure the property anu
10 defeat the purpose OF the rectiVefship' iheS
vere enjoined from any Interference with the property
or employees the receiver, and rules were
issued against individuals who we're charged with sich
offences.
Circuit Jrdye Of this circuit, the Honorable Don a.
paraee declared well settled law TINT whoever
unlawfuy nteercs with property In the POSSESSION o
court guilty OF contempt OF that court and regard
u rs equally well settled that whoever unlawfuly IN
trfer with officers and .he in the full and
complete possession and management OF tho property in the
custody court Is guilty OF contempt o, court ana
II & imn.aerial
In the way Of actual violence b. intimidation and
threats The employees OF the receivers although pro
hac vice, officers OF the court quit thef employment
employees OF private parties or corporations po'a'd
they do not thereby Intentionally disable tho pop.rty but
they must Quit and Geccnt!y Wh're they COM
and conspe quit with without notice with Tho
object and intent Of Gripping the property or ~ opr
ton have no doubt tina. they thereby commit con.
tempt; and all who combine AMI coasprc with en-
ployes quit. O1lc.a,s OF labor organizations
issue printed orders to quit 70 strike with an intent to
embarrsss the Court in administering The property render
themselves liable for contempt Of court"
Certainly 1t follows thea TINT II is In I'll" POWER OF
the court, the ntcict OF public odrr and for the pre-
lection OF the property under i,s control 10 Oifcct
suitable arrangement with It's emp officers 20 pro
vide and conditions for their employment and
to avoid possible interruption Of their labor and
duty, which will be disastrous to the trust and Injurious
20 public. There why the recevershiD
In respect should be conducted In manner differing
from the large preponderaace OF The SUCCESSFUL ana
prosperous railroads Of the country. II appear, from the
proof about % cent Of the railroads OF the United
States make contracts schedules OF rites and rcg aos
for the employment Of their operatives which agreed
BY the represent ves Of bot: the pa ties. and which
serve for the guidance OF all while thew rman In force
Many of these contracts schedules in evidence We
aec satshei these fcts that such arrangements. un
der proper restrictions prIisewoihy and bnebc ai 10
both parties and therefore shall longer hesitate 10
direct the receiver 10 enter into appropriate contract or
schedule OF aud regulations with the engineers. TIT,
act however will be restricted member, OF the
Rtherho Of Locomotive Engineers although membership
Ct that order is and wi he disqualified OF u service
OF raiirods uidc the control OF this court long the
rules and regulations o. the order tratci sub
ordinate to the law Of the lend. The contract will
prchend oil engineers employed by tho receiver whether
members or non.lnembers OF th9 brotherhood.
This brings to the consideration, first, what Is
appropriate contract and secondly whether there H.
snythng in the rules and regulations OF the Brotherhood
and relations to these properties which Is inconsistent
with law and which would make IL improper for the
court to place receiver in position where in his
exgent duty the business Of transportation.
for which tho railroad VI chartered by the he
may find himself In the power Of zed body CT his
operatives who viii be able p,ralyzc the operations Of
the properties The appropriateness OF the contrac; d.
pends solely Up OF details. There
no difference the engineers and the upon
the question Of con pcnsaton. There Is an apparent
dispute seniority engineer
rs affecting promot n. The court VIII provide however,
merit ability c0na.