The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1893-03-25

The Boycott Rule of the Engineers.
The question whether the rule which re-
Quires the Brotherhood of Locomotive En-
| gineers, employed on any road running in
connection with or adjacent to a road, or
system of roads, with which the brother
| hood IS at issue, to refuse to handle the
| property of said road, or system, is in
violation of the laws of the country OF not
| is now before the United States circuit court
at Toledo There was strike on the Toledo
Ann Arbor and Northern Michigan road and
the engineers of the Lake Shore road re-
fused to handle cars or freight of the Ann
Arbor road. The question ia one of great
Importance and the decision is awaited with
much interest.
There is one phase of the question that
may not be touched upon by the decision
of the court, though it is difficult to see
how it can fail to command attention. The
rule is ss follows: THAT hereafter when
an issue has been sustained by the grand
chief and carried into effect by the Broth
erhood of Locomotive Engineers it shall be
recognized as a violation OF obligation for a
member of the Brotherhood of Locomotive
ployed ON a railroad running in connection
with or adjacent to said road, TO handle the
property belonging to said railroad or sys-
tenn in any way that may benefit said COM
pany in which the Brotherhood of Loco
motive Engineers is at issue, until the griev-
ance or issue, Of whatever nature or kind,
has been amicably settled"
It will be observed that the property Of a
boycotted company is not to be handled in
any way that would benefit that company.
Suppose the engineers OF railroad In good
standing with the brotherhood should re-
fuse to handle loaded cars of a road on
which there was strike Of the brother
hood. and the engineers so refusing should
be discharged, and it should afterward ap-
pear that IL the loaded cars had been
handled the boycotted road would not have
been benefited in the least, that, In fact,
the handling Of them would have benefited
only the road in good standing with the
brotherhood, would refusal to reinstate the
discharged engineers be a grievance of the
engineers, and, IL 30. would 1t be such a
grievance as would justify strike? Or,
putting the matter another way are not the
engineers OF road in good Standing with
the brotherhood bound TO know whether or
not the handling Of the property Of boy
Dotted road would benefit such road. and IL
they make o mistake and suffer on account
Of it have they Legitimate grievance?
II an engineer Of the Central railroad,
for instance. had refused to handle loaded
car which had upon it marks of the Savan-
nah, Americas and Montgomery road dur
ing the recent strike on the latter road, and
had been discharged, and it afterward ap-
peared that the handling of the car
would have in no way benefited the Savan-
nah, Americus and Montgomery road,
would the brotherhood Of engineers be iusti-
fed under their rule in demanding his
reinstatement
The intention Of the rule is apparent, but
the wording Of it leaves it open to the con-
struction that to have the support of the
brotherhood an engineer must not refuse to
handle the property Of boycotted road UNI
less 1t is absolutely certain that the handling
of it would tend to benefit that road.