The representative. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1893-1901, 1894-11-14


character, the regulation of their wages
and their hours and conditions of labor,
the protection of their individual rights in
the prosecution of their trade or trades,
the raising of funds for the benefit of
| death, disabled or unemployed members. or
| the families of deceased members, or for
| such other object or objects for which
working people may lawfully combine, hav-
ing in view their mutual protection or
| benefit
e. If the means to these praiseworthy
| ends be now examined there is nothing in
| tnem 10 which the most captious critic can
OBJECT, except the provisions made for
| strikes. 1t is we'll to note that even those
provisions are of an eminently conserva-
| i've character-that great care is taken
| to guard against the abuse of a weapon
winch Is two-edged sword and generally
proves as damaging to those who use it
as 70 those against whom it is ussd. Thus,
| ny the brotherhood constitution and rules,
| strike does not take effect till approved,
| hrst, by the local grievance committee; sec
ohd' by the general grievance committee
| tnlrd, by a board of adjustment, and fourth,
| py the grand master with the consent of
| two-thlrds OF the members involved, while
striking or melting to strike except in &C
cordance with the above rules, is punished
ny expulsion from the brotherhood.
p1 nevertheless among the means of ac-
comprising the ends of the brotherhood is
tue bringing about of strike. AS what a
nooo constitution and rules, its precise ma
| ture must be
| DETERMINED BY THE COURT.
ana, as the brotherhood is entitled TO the
ordinary presumption of lawfulness for it's
methods as well it's objects until the
contrary is shown, the court will hold the
thlng termed strike in the brotherhood
constitution and rules to be something law
Iul' unless there cannot be such a thing
as lawful strike"
a. But Whatever may be the customary
VI propaole incidents or accomplishments of
strike, 1t cannot be ruled that there is
no such thing as a legal strike, that every
strike must be unlawful.
Inc necessary elements of a strike are
only three: l. The quitting of work. g by
concert between two or more; 3, simultan-
eouSIy, and in and of themselves involve
no faint of illegality. A strike becomes il
legal when to these necessary features are
added Others such as a malicious intent
followed by actual injury intimidat ting
violence, the creation of a public nuisance,
or preach of the peace of any sort
o. But it is unnecessary to elaborate
the proposition that a strike is not neces-
sarlly unlawful since it is emphaticall sus-
tanned by the recent decision of the cir
cult court of appeals in Farmers Loan and
trust Company VS.. Northern Pacific Rail-
road Company just decided in Chicago, and
1t is hardly necessary to point out that
the attending circumstances which often
make strikes unlawful, are none of them
provided for by the brotherhood constitu-
ton and rules and cannot therefore be as
sulned to be necessary incidents of any
strike occurring pursuant to them
o. II the rule that a member of the
brotherhood of Trainmen shall not work
on the Reading railroad cannot be justified
because of anything inherently unla wful in
the constitution and rules of the brother
hood, the only remaining ground on which
it can be defended is that of
BUSINESS EXPEDIENCY.
1t is conceivable, though the spectacle
would be curious one, that court of
the United States may, on business grounds.
refuse employment of persons for other
reason than their membership in an asso-
| citation whose purpose the laws of the Uni
| ted States expressly sanctions. But it is
| safe to say that the considera ton of bust
| ness policy impeling the court to the
| course suggested should be of the clearest
and most cogent character, and that the
| question presented is which the court
| will recognize as of the greatest interest
| and Importance.
| In considering the question of the bust
| ness eXpediency of the employm mt OF the
| brotherhood men, such objection as there
| is to it must arise from the fact that under
| its constitution and rules the employ
| may engage in a strike with all the natural
! and possible incidents and consequences. 1t
can hardly be denied that otherwise ths
| brotherhood organization is not only not
| Objectionable, but is salutary in it's opera
ton both as regards the employers and the
| employed.
| 1t should be remembered in the first place
that the risks of a strike are not obviated
| by excluding the members of the brother
| hood from the receivers service. Men,
| deeming themselves aggrieved and seeking
| relief or redress, though not associated in
| any formal way for any general pur-
| poses may easily unite for the single pur-
| of twill Tn hot vie +lA
| hood constitution ard rules may well be
| regarded as operating in restraint of
| strikes. BY compelling the question of
| strike or no strike to be acted upon
aftlrmatlvely by four or five different and
| Independent tribunals, they certainly tend
to prohibit a strike that is rash or reck-
| less for other than weighty cause.
While, therefore, it is the circums tances
| of the present case. the positive evidence of
strike would seem to be minimized, it
| should not be forgotten in the second place
| that the receivers proposed remedy to-
wit, a rule excluding or discharging from
service any and all members of the brother
| hood, is itself open to serious objections
| and disadvantages.
| When treatment so apparently unfair and
{ discriminating is administered through the
| fundamentally of court, the resulting
| discomfort and resentment of employees are
INEVITABLY INTENSIFIED
| because the law itself seems to have got
wrong ana IN some unaccOuntaDle manner
to have taken sides against them.
| Thus the mischiefS apprehended from
| membership of the brotherhood by the re-
ceivers' employees lie wholly in the future
| and are as small as is possible in the nature
! of things, while the mischiefs to rise from
| enforcing the receivers proposed rule are
| real and Immediate Whether and how
| far these may be regarded offsetting one
another need not be discussed. The reiec-
| ton of the proposed rule may reasonably
! be expected to be attended with such sub
! stantial advantages that the court can
| hardly hesitate as to the course which
sound business policy dictates. Not the
| least of such advantage is the avoidance of
| the necessary righteousness of the illegal
position that a shall go without wor,
unless he will give up a legal right-a
| right he may properly deem essential to
mis- safety and welfare.
No better mode for the settlement of
| contests between capital and labor has vet
been devised or tried than arbitration. and
| arbitra ton mode of settling difficulties
| between capital and labor must necessarily
| be applied in the course of the receivership
| and arbitrat ton in it's best and most effect
| i've form The court by appointing re-
| ceivers constitutes itself not only en-
! blower of labor, but the arbitrator of al
disputes between it and the receivers who
| NAV Justly be regarded representa- tives
! of capital. 1t occupies the dual capacit,
| of employer and arbitrator naturally anG
! inevitably 1t is an arbitrator whose wis
| dom and impartality are, or surely should
| be- and must be assumed to be
BEYOND SUSPICION.
! IT is an arbitrator with whom both parties
have reason to be satisfied, both from its
| and ability mako ava rf