The record-union., 1894-11-28
Receivers May Discharge Them
From Their Employ.
DECISION RENDERED BY u. S. CIR
QUIT JUDGE DALLAS
Bandits Attempt to Rob Another Train
to Pieces While Defending the Ex-
press Car and Several Others Fa-
tally Wounded, Among Thorn Some
Of the Robbers.
Special to the RECoRD-UNIoN.

| Special to the RECoRD-UNIoN.
PHILADELPHIA, Nov. 27.-Judge Dali
! las filed an opinion in the United States
Circuit Court to-day, dismlssing the petit
ton of Levi Hicks and other members of
the Brotherhood of Railway Trainmen
who desired 10 compel the receivers Of
the Philadelphia and Reading Company
to retain them in their employ, and at the
same time allow them to remain NOM
bers OF the organization.
In his opinion Judge Dallas makes no
reference whatever to Attorney eneraI
Olney's letter on the subject, in which the
latter took the ground that the receivers
| were manifestly wrong in interferi NJ &
with the employees as members of the
brotherhood Of Railway TraInmen, and
in which the Attorney General gave his
opinion that the men had perfect right
TO organize.
Judge Dallas in his opinion, which is
| quite lengthy, among other things, says:
/ "Ihe subject matter of this action was
| hrst brought to the attention of the court
! by joint petition filed October Is, 1888,
! OF stephen h. Wilkinson, Thomas Nc
Dermott and George Ii. Rupple, acting
for themselves and all employees of the
Philadelphia and Reading Railroad Com
! pany who are members OF an unincorDo-
rated association called the brotherhood
OF hallway Iralnmen. The object OF the
proceeding was TO obtain an order re-
straining the receivers from acting in
pursuance of a notice as follows:
ON or about the 10Th day of August
| last your petitioners We're notified that
all members of the said association must
dissolve their connection with the same
on or before October 18th, or falling to do
so, would be discharged from the service
OF the receivers
II thought, as | still think that neither
the association nor its chief officer had
any legal standing to be heard in COM
plant OF any action taken or proposed 10y
! the receivers, or to invoke or advise dis
| allowance alter any measure adopted or
contemplated by them in the performance
of the duties assigned to them. 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 5.
Riley, and dlsposes Of them as follows:
Both OF these persons are i'll the sery-
| ice of the receivers and 10th are mem bers
| OF the unlucorporated association known
as the Brotherhood of Railway Trainmen.
| pany In the year 1887, and has since been
maintained by it and by the receivers, to
| the effect that no one would be employed
| III lis service Who was a member OF such
an association, unless he would agree to
withdraw theretrom.
| Levi Hicks was employed as brake
| man on October 20, 1893. The established
form of application, representing that the
| applicant was not member of any labor
| organization, or that ii such a mem ber
he would withdraw therefrom, was pre-
Sented TO him tor signature, but he then
declined to state whether or not he was a
| MEMBER OF such organization, and there
upon he was employed by a subordinate
agent OF the receivers, and without their
| knowledge or that OF the General Super
intendent. On or before August |, 1894
he was notified that unless he gave up
MS mem mbershlp i'll the brotherhood he
| would be discharged. He still retained
both his membership and his employ
ment, and on October Sth, the day on
which the original petition was filed, and
after it had been presented to the General
superintendent, had an interview with
others OF the employees, at which no
threats were maue of discharge but
reference was made to the agreements
under which the men had entered the
service OF the company, and they did
agree to withdraw.
The proposed discharge of George S,
Riley has no connection with his mem
bership in the brotherhood of Railway
Trainmen, but is caused solely by his
failure to satisfactorily perform his duties
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 animad verting upon
his participation in the equivocal and ex-
ceptional 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 imposes upon
the receivers an obligation to retain him.
ought not to be sustained.
THE purpose to discharge Mr.. Hicks
unless he would resign from the associa-
ton was communicated to him about tw o
| months prior to October Sth, and his
promise of that day was given simply in
the exercise of his right of selection be-
! tween the alternatives, which had been
previously presented to his choice. The
fact is, he did agree to sever his connec-
nection with the Brotherhood, and though
in making mis- selection he was doubtless
confronted with dilemma, it was OBJ
vious that he was not in any legal sense
subjected to compulson. But it is not
necessary that l should and do not, rest
my Judgment upon this tardy agreement
ut is at least certain that by making it
Mr.. Hicks acquired no better position
than he obtained before and without it.
L am OF the opinion that the receivers
would have been justified in dismissing
him upon grounds peculiar to him, and
wholly irrespective of the broad question
which he has attempted to obtrude into
this case. 1t 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 5. Riley is utterly devoid of
equity"
Judge Dallas then takes up the Brother
hood of Railway Trainmen, and says /:
"The real question, however, is not
whether the Brotherhood of Railway
} Trainman is or is not inimical to the gen.
eral welfare, but whether these receivers
should be ordered to retain it's members
i'll their service. despite the company's
pre-exlstlng rule to the contrary and
against their own unanimous Judgment
That the contemplated action is not un-
lawful is too plain for argument. That it
contravenes public policy is asserted
But how can this be established &? know
OF no means OF ascertaiping the policy of
the public in relation to personal rights
but by consulting the public laws. This
particular association is not a corporation.
but II 1t were it would not follow. as
seems to be supposed, that it would right
fully insist upon the retention OF its
members IN the service of another cor
poration against its will"
ATTACKED BY BANDITS.