Rock Island Argus. (Rock Island, Ill.) 1893-1920, 1894-11-09
OLNEY ON UNIONS.
Important Opinion on Organ.
ized labor's Rights.
CANNOT BE LEGALLY PRESCRIBED,

Membership in Unions Being q Right of
which Man Cannot lie Deprived-A
Euie of the Reading Railway That the
Receivers should Not Apply, According
to the Attorney Generals vicw-Points
from the document.
PHILADELPHIA, Nov. 9.-The contro-
versy between the receivers of the Reading
Railroad company and such employees as
urv members of the Brotherhood of Rail-
way Trainmen has prompted an express
sion of opinion from Attorney General
Olncy in the form of o letter to judge
Dallas, of the United States circuit court
before whom the case is pending. The
difficulty between the two organizations
reached u crisis on Aug. 15 last, when Gen
rral superintendent Sweigard summoned
before him eleven employees and notified
them that they should abandon the broth
rrhood Us condition of retaining their
places with the railroad company. Vigor-
Uus protests We're made against this alter
native, and the brotherhood urged the re-
cciycrs to withdraw it, but in answer the
receivers, ON sept. II, wrote:
The policy of this company is well
known to M that it will not consent that
persons in its service shall owe allegiance
10 other organizations which may make
claims upon them which are incompatible
with their duties to their employers. This
position was taken advisedly, and we have
no intention of departing from it,
olney sus;ains the Unions View.
Attorney General Olney's letter is an
exhaustive discussion of the questions pre.
,cnted, and he reviews the various prob
lens and tho consistent solutions to bc ap-
Piled in every aspect. in substance, he
holds that labor unoreanized is powerless;
that in combinations .such us this lie the
only -afeg,upui of the workingman in his
dealings with organized capital, and that
his right to belong to such union-bene-
fetal in intent and purpose-is legal
right which he cannot be deprived Of In
the course of his letter the attorney gem
cral urycs the fact that the men in uues-
tion arc and have been members of the
unionfor years, paying dues with the objcct
that when sick or disabled they would re-
cciyc benefits from the union, all of which
would bc lost IL they should withdraw as
demanded by the company.
I;ule No; Uniformly Enforced.
He then goes on to say: If, rs it is
claimed, the Reading railroad has for some
year- adopted the rule that 1t would not
have in its service any member of IA labor
organization it il n rule which has not
been uniformly rinvariab!y acted upon,
since there has been n Philadelphia lodge
oi the brotherhood on thc. Reading line for
nearly eight years and its existence cannot
have been unknown to the Reading of
hc'al>. The receivers make no complaint
Of the manner in which the brotherhood
employees discharge their respective duties.
The notice has been given simply because
ut such employees membership in the
brotherhood n is conclusivcly shown by a
telegram received By Grand Master Wilk-
in-on. in reply to his rcInonstrance against
the course proposed to be taken"
Which telegram is quoted in the forcgo
Company Not Now In Charge.
Olncy then says that II the rule of pro
scription because of unionism Is to prevail
by direction of the receivers they are
wrong and should not be sustained by the
court. He calls attention to the fact that
the company is not now in control, and
says: The court and not the company is
the employer of all the persons engaged
In the operations of the road. The pres
cnt policy of the court and not the past
policy of the company is the material
thing To de- considered, and hence the pre-
else question is, will the court now lay
down the rule that members of the Broth
rrhOOd OF Trainmen shall, because they
arr such members. lie dis charged from the
service Of the road ~