The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1893-12-12
THEY WERE LET OUT.
Complaint Of Nine Discharged
Lake Shore Conductors.
NOW THEY DEMAND a HEARING.
The Erotbsrhood Was Not Consulted
The Eer~sv@y says They "kneeked
Dowa'-stYfke Threatened.

lie. Lake store A. Eastern railroad Who
we're discharged By Receiver BFown on
October I and November - because he
suspected them Of knocking down" fares.
have sued the receiver to compel him 70
give them an investigation by filing spe-
ciLc charges against them With commit
tee OF Investigation Of the Brotherhood o.
Railway Trainmen and 80 promote full
Investigation with reinstatement OF the
discharged men If the charges are proven
false. The suit is brought by J.. f.. Cor
eorau. one Of the discharged conductors,
for himself and the other eight whose
names are not given. The grievance con-
niittee Of the local lodge. No. igJ. Brother
hood Of Railway Tfsinmen. joins wish
Coreorsn ss petitioner in the suit, which
was fled in tho United States district
court yesterday.
TIE cause for action Ii largely based
nuou contract alleged 10 be an existence
between the Northern Pacific Railway
Gornpany and the brotherhood. entered
futo prior 70 the receivership. when the
Northern Pacific was operating the Lake
Shore road. The petitioners silege that
this agreement has been CONTINUED under
the receivers management by virtue of
the alleged continuance Of the traffic
agreement between the two roads since the
receivers appointment. They claim that
By the terms Of the brotherhood's contract
tralnmen cannot be discharged without
charges being led and investigated. and
they therefore aIiege that Receiver Brown
has violated the contract. Receiver Brown
denies that he has any contract With the
brotherhood or any agreement with the
Northern Pacific by which the brother
hoods contract can be made binding upon
him.
Corcoran and the brotherhood make
specific charges against the receiver. They
cay he has arrogated TO himself unlimited
power in cutting wages and discharging
men without consulting the brotherhood
or the court about the agreement with the
former. rather broad hint Is made that
In case the petition is refused by Judge
Hanford a strike will be inaugurated
among employees of the road
The petitioners preface their complaint
with a statement that the order TO which
they belong has 5000 members. It's OBJ
iect, they say. is the promotion of the vel
fare OF railway employees and employers,
the prevention of strikes, the settlement
OF disputes by arbitration only and the
general promotion of harmony. Nearly
every railroad in the United States, they
alege has an agreement with the brother
hood, the Northern Pacific being one of
them. On May 25 fs8o. contract was
signed by the Northern Pacific.
which was then operating the Seattle,
Lake Shore a. Eastern railway as a
branch line, by which the rules
made by the brotherhood were ratified
and accepted by the Northern Pacific and
put in effect on June 1. 1890, TO continue
until their abroga.ion by the act of one of
the parties. These rules provided among
other things that in case any man sas
discharged for other reasons than those OF
dishonesty, the charges should be in writ
ing. bat that In any case, by filing state
nent of facts with the division superin-
tendent. the empioye might DO entitled TO
have tiled with committee composed OF
three trainmen Of good standing in the
order, named by himself. and the division
superintendent. specific charges which
he might answer In reasonable time and
make proper defense. Then q hearing
might be had with accused and accuser
present, and in case the charges proved
false the accused might demand aud re-
oeive reinstatement and full pay for time
lost. This particular rule was in effect
when Receiver Brown was appointed, so
the petitioners allege, and the latter, by
operating the road in connection with the
Northern Pacific by means OF traffic con
tract has. according To their agreement,
continued IL unrevoked and in tul effect
as to the Seattle, Lake Shore and Eastern.
This was the state Of affairs on October 1
and November - hen Receiver Brown
discharged from his employ and from that
OF the road and of the court, under whose
direction the road is operated, nine con-
duc;ors. including the petitioner. Coreoran.
who was then tirst-class passenger con-
ductor under the terms of the contract
and by reason of his long term OF service.
No reason. its alleged. vas given. and the
disoharglng MAS done solely by reason OF
the commands and wishes of the receiver
and at his arbitrary viii. Immediately
after their discharge the conductors 1t il
asserted, went individually 10 the receiver
and his subordinates for specific reason.
fer their discharge. Coreorsn also appiy
ing by attorney.
The receiver, the latter alleges, met them
coolly and informed them that he had as
sumed the right 10 discharge any and al
employees of the road arbitrarily and ac
cording 20 bis own desire aud wishes, and
to employ and discharge trstnmen as If h,
were tho absolute owner OF the road
Further. that no knew nothing aud cares
nothing aboat the Order If Railway Train
men or any contract ITS members or thoss
OF other orders might have with tho road
or any railway, for he had good and sufsi
cssnt evidence upon which 50 base theil
discharge and did not therefore propose "a
make any specific charges against the peti
toner. Corcoran. or any other of the dis
charged employees. lie informed CorcorAr
himself the latter alleges. that II he shout
make any further demand or request 10
specific charges shat he. the receiver
would cause an information to be lie,
and criminal proceedings 80 10 COM
mrnced. and besides IN various other NAY
threatened and attempted - eoeree an,
compel the conductors. particularly Cor
eoran. t. refrain from asserting thes
rights under tho agreement
The petitioner. Corcoran. then slssxe
that on November II he presented through
his attorney. Richard sane Jones. avn,
ten demand GA Newman Nine. surcrln
teadent OF the Seattle, Lake SHORE 4
EAsgegn, which informed the latter tha
the petitioner had been uuja>tlv di.
charged bY the receiver tor the ALLEGED res
con thu; ne had failed ~ tura IN fares CD
leeteA and that the receiver bal refused :
lie spec sc charges lie there orc re,lreste,
that sbe superintendent; woa.a de>sguai
three trAinmen ia gSaa standing. I
Denny. Roy ThoTnburg and +. ". JACK
son, to scs ~ committee - anyestagas