Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1894-11-09
TELEGRAPHIC.
IN FAVOR OF THE LABORERS
Attorney General OlnsY Gives An
Opinion IN a Controversy
Between tho Receivers Of ~ RaiIrond
aud the brotherhood OF HAIL.
way TrAinmeu,

PHILADELPHIA, Nov. s.-Tho oJn.
troversy between the receivers Of the
Reading Railroad company aud such
employees as are members Of the
Motherhood Of Railway Tralnmen,
has prompted au expression Of opiulon
from Attorney General Olney In tho
form ola letter TO Judge Dallas Of tho
United states cltcuit cluri, before
whom The case 10 pending. The ditii.
Guilty between tho two organizations
reached n crisis on Auguat l5lh lat,
when General superintendent SwUig-
nri summoned before him eleven Um-
ployes ami notified them they should
abandon the brotherhood as a c0udi.
ton OF retaining their places with the
railway company. Vigorous protests
were made against this alternative,
ash tho brotherhood urged tue re-
coivora 10 Withdraw u, but ia answer
The receivers, on September l7th wrote:
"rhe policy Of this company j. well
known 90 DO that u viii not consent
that pers0ns In It's service shall owe
allegiance 20 other organizations
which may make claims upon them
which arc Incompatible with their
duties 10 their EN- ployur'. This posi-.
ton was taken gdvisudiy, ami We
have no Intention oil departing from
IT,
Attorney oneTalOlncy In substance
h0lis that Ia combinations suon as thu
brotherhood lios tho only safeguard VI
the wOfklngman ~ his dealings vita
organized capital, and mat his rlgnt 10
lolung % such union-bonehclal IN
intent and purposo--is lcgsl right
which no cannot Do deprived of.
IL tho receivers nTu right ami thoir
tuiU 10 % prevail, niumbrmhip of tho
brotherhood by AMI OF itsuli incapaci.
tates Tor service on the TuaI. it h.
respectfully submitted that tue recoiv.
CrH arc wrong, and That the action pro-
POSED by them ought not 10 DO sane
TONED by tue court.
Tue Reading niir1ada being now ia
the hands OF tho receivers, the fucuiv.
ors an1 the employees Of the company
nfo uiilCcra OF the court. Tho court,
therefore, ami not the company, Ia tue
employer VI all the PERSONS engaged Ia
the operations u the ROAD. Hence the
precise question ie, will tho court now
lay dowu the rule that mombefs OF the
Motherhood OF rminmeu uuall. be-
cause they are such mtmDefs, DO die
charged from the service OF tue rohd2
Tue court, IL " admitted, ought not
anu canuOt lay down any such rule
on the grounds, until either the Iuf.
poses aud objects OF the brotherhood,
or the means by which they are Al
lainut, are ahown 10 bu Illegal.
On the legality Of aIriKU ths ntt0r-
ney general aayti
The necessary elements Of strike
are only thrvt: a., the quitting OF
work. ~, by Concert between two or
m0rci (dl, simultaneously - aud OF
themselves Involve no taiut If illegal.
iiy.
A strike becomes Illegal when to
these necessary features are added
Others, such as a malicious intent fol-
lowed by cruel Injury, illuminating,
violence, the creating Of a public nui.
taneo or breach Of tho peace Of any
sort.
A strike Ia not necessarily unlawful,
since II II emphatioally sustained by
tue recent decision OF the court of APP
peals In tho Fatmers' Loan * rrust
company vs. the Northern Pacific
Railway company, just decided IA
Chicago, anu Il Ia hardly necessary TO
point out that the attending clroum.
HlAncrs which No often make strikes
unlawful are none u Thorn provided
Tor by tho brotherhood constitution
md rules, anu cannot therefore DO
assumed to be- necessary incidents OF
any strikes occurring pursuant 10
them.