Rock Island Argus. (Rock Island, Ill.) 1893-1920, 1894-11-09
authorized TO incorporate themselves nv

authorized 20 incorporate themselves nv
act OF congress- ny
neierrin3 TO the provision made for
s.rikes, which he says is the ONLY one TO
C,. .''c most captious critic can object.
IN! says III Is well to note that even
pro'isiohs are OF an eminently con-
"'Ne se, character; that great care is
taken to guard against the nhusa ~ !.
weapon which is two-edpcd sword ana
generally proves as damaging to tboSa
VINO use 1t as to those against whom n iS
used. He proceeds to state how a strike
called, and says that as the word
strike is not defined by the brotherhood
rules the court will hold the thing termed
s0rike IN the brotherhood constitution
ahc rules TO be something lawful, unless
there cannot be such thing as q lawful
''strike."
lie states, however, that it cannot be
maintained that there is no such thing
AS a legal strike and defines an ilIeoai
strike as one where there is malicious in.
tent followed by actual injury intimid.
tlon, violence, the creation of n Dubljc nui-
sancc or breach of the peace of any sort
lie adds that it is hardly necessary to
point out that the attending circumstances
which often make strikes illegal are none
OF them provided for by the brotherhood
constitution and rules and cannot there
Tore be assumed to be necessary incidents
Oh any strike occurring pursuant to them.
II 1he prescription of union men cannot
be Justified because of anything inherent
ly illegal in the union the only remaining
ground would be business expiedency. and
he says it would be curious spectacle
in United States court for it to refuse
employment to any persons for no other
reason then their membership of an asso-
clation whose purposes the laws of the
United States expressly sanction. He SAYS,
however, that the question of business
expedency turns entirely on the strike
question because otherwise there is moth :
ing IN tho escotherhood that could be called
Objectionable
The absence of organizations of en-
ployes would not prevent strikes, Olney
says, but might make them more frequent
and embarrassing, there being no organi-
zation to prescribe how a strike shall be
declared; in which view of the case he
says the brotherhood system may be looked
| upon as y restraint of strikes. The propo-
sition to discharge men because they are
union men is so unfair that-especially
| whom executed through a court-the re-
sulting discomfort and resentment of en-
pioyes are inevitably intensified, because
the law itself seems to have got wrong
and in some unaccountable manner to
have taken sides against them.
Olncy vigorously advises the rejection of
| the proposed rule as u course attended
with substantial advantages not the least
of which is "the avoidance of the neces-
| sary righteousness of the illegal position
that a man shall go without work unless
he will give up legal right-a right he
| may properly deem essential to his safety
and welfare" He then discusses the
| court as an arbiter of labor disputes
| while the road is in its hands and says in
effect that the court is in = perfect, posi-
| ton to demonstrate whether what is
| called compulsory" arbitration could be
made successful; having all the necessary
| elements of n court ofarbitration and the
power to enforce its decrees