The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1894-11-28
Petition of Reading Railway Train-
men for Recognition of Their
brotherhood Dismissed.
PRESIDENT CLEVELAND SAFE
APPLICATION OF DEBs's A. r. L.
DENIED BY JUDGE MORROW.
The Chief Executive Will Not BE
Summoned to Sam Francisco to Tes-
tify I'm the Strike Cases.

cult Court to-day, dismSsing the petitions
of Levi Hicks and other members of the
Brotherhood of Railway Trainmen, who de-
sired to compel the receivers of the Phila-
delphia & Reading company TO retain them
in their employ. and at the same time al
low them to remain members of the organi-
zation. In his opinion Judge Dallas makes
no reference whatever to Attorney-general
Olneys recent letter on the subject, in
which the latter took the ground that the
receivers were manifestly wrong in inter-
fering with the employees members of
the Brotherhood of Railway Trainmen, and
I'm which the Attorney general gave as his
opinion that the men had a perfect right
to organize. Attorney-general Olney also
held that organization of this kind was
not only beneficial to the employees but to
the railroad company as well, inasmuch as
the company was enabled to secure the
services of thoroughly reliable men. Judge
Dallas, in his opinion, which is quite
lengthy, says, among other things
1.-The subject matter of this litigation was
first brought to the attention Of the court
by the joint petition, filed Oct. s, 1884, of
Stephen E. Wilkinson, Thomas McDermott
and George H. Ruppel. acting for them
selves, and all employees of the Philadel-
phia & Reading Railroad Company, who
are members of an unincorporated volun-
tary association called the Brotherhood OF
Railway Trainmen The object Of the pro-
ceeding was to obtain an order restraining
the receivers from acting in pursuance Of
a notice, as follows: ON about the 18th
day of August last your petitioners were
notified that all members of said associa-
ton must dissolve their connection With
the same on or before Oct s. or. failing TO
do so, would be discharged from the serv-
Ice of the receivers 1 thought as l still
frE hof no nm nn c
chief officer had any legal standing to be
heard in complaint of any action taken or
proposed by the receivers, or to invoke or
advise the disallowance of any measure
adopted or contemplated by them in the
performance of the duties assigned to
them. They have made contract with
or through this association, and none had
been so made by the company"
THE HICKS AND RILEY CASES.
The original petition having been disposed
| of. Judge Dallas next takes up the petit
tions of Levi Hicks and George s. Rney
and disposes of them as follows:
Both of these persons are In the service
| of the receivers and both are members of
| the uuincorporated association known as
the Brotherhood of Railway Trainmen. A
| rule was adopted by the railroad company
| in the year 1887 and has since been main
tanned by it 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 with
draw therefrom.
| LEVI HICKS was employed as brakeman
on Oct. 20. 1898. The established form of
| application, representing that the applicant
| was not a member of any labor orsaniza-
| ton, or that If such a member he would
] for signature, but he then declined to state
| whether or not he was member of such
| an organization and thereupon he was en-
l ployed by a subordinate agent of the re-
ceiver and without their knowledge or that
about 'e Aug. Is. 1894 he was notified by the
| latter that unless he gave up his member
ship in the brotherhood he would be dis
| charged. He still retained both his MEM
bership and his employment. and on Oct
| g. the day on which his original petition
was filed and after it had been presented
the general superintendent had an interview
| with others of the employees. at which no
| threat was made of discharge. but refer
| ence was made to the agreements under
which the men had entered the service of
| the company and TO the rules of the COM
| pany, and they did agree to withdraw. The
| proposed discharge of George S. Riley has
| TO connection with his membership in the
| Brotherhood of Railway Trainmen, but is
caused solely by his failure to satisfactorily
| The circumstances disclosed in the case
| of Levi Hicks do not entitle him to the
| interposition of a court of equity on his
| behalf Without animadverting upon his
| participation In the equlvocal and excep-
tional means by which he secured his pres.
| ent employment it may, at least, be said
that his assumption that the fact that he
so secured employment imposes upon the
receivers an obligation to retain him in ii
| ought not to be sustained The purpose to
| discharge Mr.. Hicks unless he would resign
| from the association was communicated to
| him about two months prior to Oct. 8, and
| his promise of that day was given simply
in the exercise of his right of election be-
viously presented TO his choice. The fact
| is that he did agree to sever his connec-
ton with the brotherhood, and though In
making his selection he was doubtless con-
fronted by dilemma. 1t was obvious that
he was not in any legal sense subjected to
should. and do not. rest my judgment
| upon this tardy agreement. 1t is at least
certain by making 1t Mr. M Hicks KS acquired %
and. without 1T, am of opinion that the
receivers would have been justified in dis
and wholly irrespective OF the broad ques-
| ton which he has attempted to obtrude
into his case. 1t results that the petitioner
| Hicks, has not made out a case emitting
him to the relief which he seeks. and it is
even more manifest that the case of Geo
S. Riley IS utterly devoid Of equity"
THE TREATMENTS BROTHERHOOD.
Judge Dallas then takes up the Brother.
hood OF Railway Trainmen and says: ..The
real question. however. is not whether the
Brotherhood OF Railway Trainmen is or IL
not inimical to the general welfare. but
whether these receivers should be ordered
to retain its members in their service. de-
spite the company's pre-exlsting rule 10 The
contrary and against their own unanimous
Judgment. If such an order ought TO bs
made ii must be because the action to b.
restrained would injuriously affect the in
| terests the receivers have In charge, o,
would be contrary 10 law or unjust TO thos,
| Immediately concerned. II there is any
| other consideration upon which the direc
ton asked for could be based counsel hav,
not suggested Ii nor do I perceive r.
| THAT the contemplated action is not un
lawful is too plain for argument. Tha
! il contravenes public policy is asserted
| But how can this be established? / know
of no means of ascertaining the policy o.
the public in relation TO personal rights bu
by consulting the public laws. This partic
ular association is not corporation; bu
If il was it would not follow, seems 4
be supposed, that II would rightfully insis
upon the retention of its members in tn,
service of another corporation against il.
| wiv''
Judge Dallas concludes as follows: 9TH,
rule complained of by The petitioners wa
promulgated as long ago as the year 1851
and the receivers emphatically assert thei
belief. which is not controverted, that n,
employe has since entered the service II
ignorance OF its existence. or Joined tn
brotherhood of Railway Trainmen withou
being aware that by so doing he violates
Ii. 1t is possible there may be few mel
there cannot be many-to whom the stric
enforcement OF the rule would occasion
some hardship. But no such case has beel
made known. and the answer OF the re
ceiver displays no vindicttve feeling or de
position to harshneoe- have no heoIfn
tion N relying upon them 70 dea] laiFn