New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1893-03-24
fed with their own circumstances ana treat
uaant they have a RIGHT To discriminate agalnst

fed with their own circumstances apo "e"'
ment, they have right to discriminate against
another road, and to compel the company EN-
Moving them 10 violate a law. III the law OF
tho brotherhood be obcycd, the law OF the
J-n;ted States might as well be repealed, or so
modified that n connecting road shall not dis
orim;nate aoainst another unless such di>cnm-
nation is required by labor orgahH'',on'
Clearly the law of the United States OF inc III"
Of the brotherhood must 60. AS the courts
exist for the purpose Of giving ehcc 10 INC
laws of the United States, they are liRe! 10
decide that its laws must he obcycd ana ell
forced until the people see fit - mcdiI! 'heh''
Truc the Interstate law does not in express
forms prohibit employees from refusing WORK
and roslgning situations when freight Is offered
which they choose not to handle. But the
essential matter here is the motive. The men
refuse. under the law OF the Brotherhood fer
tho express purpose of discriminating and com-
rc'ling the Lake Shore to dis riminatc against
a connecting road. For the company, '"'s j.
an cxprc,s violation Of United states law. ana
not less 80 for every cmployc who accepts ser
vice knowing as he is bound to know The law
which governs Il railroad in Transporting
freight. In taking such position at I'll ne
accents with full knowledge that he may at
any time be required by law of the nten
states TO do what a law of the Brotherhood
prohibits.
II will be observed as vital feature in the
whole controversy that il is only the attempt
to boycott connecting roads which railway en-
ploycs are required by the Interstate law I"
abandon Discrimination against other roads
is n BOYCOTT, and nothing else. The twelfth
rule of the Brotherhood makes the boycott Oh
connecting roads an essential and permanent
pa.t of its system o. working. No such qncS-
ton can arise in the operation OF a road running
from one State into another for in case OF
strike on such road men would not be en-
gagged in defeating the law which prohibits
discrimination against other roads. II is prob
able that other provisions Of the Interstate act
NAV be found to limit in some respects The
tights CT hands who accept positions on roads
doing Intels,at business, but these limitations
if any exist are not at present in question: Inc
naked question in the Ann Arbor case Is
whether a law of the Brotherhood which re-
auires discrimination. or 4 law OF TIE hited
States which prohibits discrimination, shall be
obcyed and enforced.
The course of Chief Arthur, in making frank
disclosure Of the rule above cited, leads to a
belief that he may be prompt 10 recognize It's
Obvious antagon>m with the law Of the land.
and to Use his great influence rs tho head OF
the organization to bring about change oi
its rule IL is. NJ all events. rule when
should never have been adopted. Tho boycott
is not an American method OF settling differ
encCs Its very nature is f. force innocent
! y,h "A v,
bear part Of the losses and suiicrings which
il may involve and 10 intc.ierc arbitrarily with
the tight Of individuals 10 labor under such
terms as they may agree upon with their own
cmplo,crs But whatever may have been
thought Of the ralc hitherto. 1t can scarcely be
upheld by lawabiding members Of the Loco
NJ tive Engineer, when 1t il found directly
CONTRARY - a law of the United states.