The morning call., 1894-11-28
DEALT BY JUDGE DALLAS.
Rights of Men and of Railroad
Companies.
DECISION IN The READING CASE
In Which the Attorney General Is
Passed Over as Though he
Did Not Exist.

PHILADELPHIA, Nov. 27.-Judge Dallas |
filed an opinion in the United States Clr-
cult Court to-day dismissing the petltion
of Levi Hicks and other members OF the |
Brotherhood of Railway Trainmen. VINO |
desired to compel the receivers or the
Philadelphia and Reading Company to re-
tain them in tn cir employ and at the same
tim allow them to remain members CT the
organization. In his opinion Judge Dallas
makes no reference whatever to Attorney |
General Olney's recent letter on the sub !
j5ct, in which the latter took the ground |
that the receivers were mablfeStly wrong |
in interfering with the employees as men, |
bers of the Brotherhood Of Railway Train |
men and 10 which the Attorney-General |
gave his opinion that the men had per- |
feet right to organize. Judge Dallas, in |
his opinion, which is quite lengthy, says |
among other things:
The subject matter OF this litigation was first
brought to the attention Of the court by the
joint petlton-6ed October s. 1S94-of Stephen !
L. Wilkinson, Thomas McDermott and George
II. Ripple, acting for themselves. and all en-
ployes of the Philadelphia aud Reading Rail-
road Company, who are members of an unln-
cOrporated association called the Brotherhood
of Railway Trainmen.
The object OF the proceeding was to obtain
an order restraining the receivers from acting
In pursuance of notice follows: ''On or
about the 18th day of August last your Pc
ttioners were notified that all members of the
said association must dissolve their connection
with the same or before October 49, or,
falling TO do so, would be discharged from the
service of the receivers"
Il thought, as l still think, that neither the
association nor its CHIEF officer had any legal
standing to be heard IN complaint OF any action
woke or advise disaliOwance of any measure
adopted or contemplated BY them In the per-
Torrance OF the duties assigned TO TIL NJ.
They have made no contract with or through
this association and none had been made by
the company.
The original petition having been dis
posed of Judge Dallas next takes up the
petitions of Levi Hicks and George S.
Riley and disposes of them as follows:
Both OF these persons are in The service of
the receivers, and both are members of The
unIncOrporated association known as the
Brotherhood of Railway Trainmen. & rule
was adopted by the railway company 10 the
year 1887. and has since been maint aimed by 1t
and by the receivers, TO the effect that no one
would be employed in its service who was
member of such an association unless he would
agree to withdraw Iherefrom.
Levi Hicks was employed as brakeman on
October 90, 1898. The established form of ap-
pllcatiOn, representing that the applicant was
not member OF any labor organization or that
il such a member he would Withdraw there
trom,was presented TO him for signature but, he
then declined 10 state whether or not he was
member OF such organization, and Ihereupon be
was employed by subordinate agent of the
receivers and without their knowledge or that
OF the General Superintendent. On or before
August 1, 1894, he was notified that unless he
gave up his membership in the Brotherhood be
would be discharged. He still retained both
his membership and his employment, aud on
October s. the day on which its original peli-
ton was filed and after il had been presented,
the general superintendent had an interview
with others OF the employees at which no threats
were made of discharge, but reference was
made to the agreements under which the men
had entered the service of the company and
the rules of the company, and they did
agree 10 withdraw. The proposed discharge of
George S. Riley has no connection with his
membership in the Brotherhood Of Railway
Trainmen, but is caused solely by his failure 10
satisfactorily perform his duties.
"The circumstances disclosed in the case OF
Levi Hicks do not enIite him to the inter-
position OF a court OF equity on his behalf.
Without animadVerting upon his participation
In the eQuiyocal and exceptional means by
which he secured his present employment, il
may at least be said that his assumption that
the fact that he so secured employment i'm
poses upon the receivers an Obligation TO re-
tain him in it ought not to be sustained.
1.-The purpose 10 discharge MIR. Hicks unless
he would resign from the association was COM
muGicated to him about two months prior to
October 8, and his promise of hat day was
given simply in the exercise of mis- right of Sc.
lection between the alternatives which had been
previously presented TO his choice The fact
is that he did agree TO sever MS connection
with the brotherhood, and though in making
his selection ne was doubtless confronted by a
dilemma 1t was obvious that he was not in any
legal sense subjected to compulsion. But it is not
necessary that 1 should and l do not rest
my judgment upon this tardy agreement. 1t is
at least certain that by making it Mr.. hicks
acquired no better position than he obtained
before aud without 1t. am OF the opinion that
the receivers would have been justified in dis
missing him upon grounds peculiar to him aud
wholly Irrespective Of the broad question
which he has attempted to obtrude into his
case. II results that in the petition Hicks has
not made out case emitting him to the relief
which he seeks, and il is even more manifest
that the case Of George S. Riley is utterly de.
void of equity"
Judge Dallas then takes up the Brother
hood of Railroad Trainmen and says:
THE real question, however, is not
whether the Brotherhood of Railway
Trainmen is or is not inimical to the gen.
eral welfare. but whether these receivers
should be ordered to retain its members in
their service. despite the company's pre-
existing rule to the contrary, and against
their own unanimous judgment. That the
contemplated action is not unlawful is
too plain for argument That 1t contra
venes public policy is asserted. But how
can this be established? l know of no
means of ascertaining the policy of the
public in relation TO personal rights but
by consulting the public laws. This par
ticular association is not a corporation,
but if it was 1t would not follow, as seems
TO be supposed, that it could rightfully
insist upon the retention of its members
in The service Of another corporation
against it's will"