Freeland tribune. (Freeland, Pa.) 1888-1921, 1894-11-29
RAILR0ADERS DEFEATED.
UNION MEN CAN BE DISCHARGED ON
THE READING SYSTEM.

Judge Dallas Gives His Decision in the
Great Suit of the Brotherhood of Rail-
way Trainmen Against the Receivers
of the Philadelphia and Reading.
Judge Dallas, in the United States
circuit court at Philadelphia on Tuesday,
decided in favor of the receivers of the
Reading Railroad Company in the suit
brought against them under the petitions
of Levi Hicks and other members of the
Brotherhood of Railway Trainmen, to
prevent the receivers from discharging
their employees on the Reading road who
desired to retain their membership in
the brotherhood. This suit gained con-
siderable notoriety by reason of Attorney
General of the United States Olney's
letter to Judge Dallas upholding the
claims of the railroaders. In the course
of his lengthy opinion Judge Dallas said:
81 think that neither the brotherhood
nor Wilkinson as its chief officer had
any legal standing to be heard in COM
plant to any action taken or proposed
by the receivers. They have made no
contracts with or through this associa-
ton, and none had been made so by the
company. His Interpolation in the pro-
ceeding was therefore without color of
right. AS to the remaining petitioners,
the case, in view of the matters set up
by the answer, was not passed, and
could not haye been continued with
success.
1.-The circumstances disclosed in the
case of Levi Hicks do not entitle him to
the interposition of court of equity on
his behalf. Without animadverting up
on his participation in the equiyocal and
exceptional means by which he secured
his present 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 re-
tain him in it ought not to be sustained.
There is absolutely nothing before
the court which would warrant it in
holding that the trust property is likely
to be injuriously affected by the receiy-
ers' enforcement of the company's rule.
THAT the contemplated action is not
lawful is too plain for argument. That
it contravenes public policy is asserted,
but how can this be established? |
know of no means of ascertaining the
policy of the public in relation to per-
sonal rights but by consulting the public
laws. This particular association is not
a corporation, but, if it was, it would not
follow, as seems to be supposed, that it
would rightfully insist npon the reten-
ton of its members in the service of an
other corporation against its will.
"In short, the court is asked TO enter
decree the practical effect of which
would be to permanently annul a regula-
tions adopted by the owners of the
property, and this without the consent
of those now interested in it. l have
not been convinced that there is any
thing in this case which would justify
compliance with this request. 1t is
possible there may have been a few
men to whom the strict enforcement of
the rule would occasion some hardship,
but no such case has been made known,
and the answers of the receivers dis
play no vindictive feeling or disposition
to harshness. The several petitions men
toned in this opinion are dismissed"
Parties supplied with ice cream, cakes,
candy, etc, at low prices by Laubach.