The Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1868-1895, 1894-11-14
oLNEY TALKS SENSE.


has been the victim Of more personal
abuse than any member Of the cabinet
and has answered nothing, made no ex-
plantations, no promises, but quiet
in the way that he considered
proper. This has made Mr.. Olney
| somewhat unpopular. especially with peo-
pie who wanted to know various things.
Now Mr.. Olnay has spoken on one sub
ject, and his words are of great interest.
He has been denounced as a corporation
attorney, a trust attorney, and all that
sort OF thing, but he is certainly very
clear and level-headed on the branch of
the labor question on which he now
speaks-the right of railroad receiver to
discharge workingmen simply because
they are members of labor unions. The
question arose from the discharge, by the
receiver Of the Reading railroad, OF a
number of employees who were members
of the Brotherhood of railway trainmen.
After discussing the objects of the
brotherhood, Mr.. Olney shows its abso-
lutte legality as follows:
Certainly these objects must be re-
garded as laudable in the highest de-
gree, and as deserving the appreciation
and support of every good citizen. They
are indeed practically the same as those
for which working people are expressly
authorized to incorporate themselves by
act Of congress-the statutory description
of such objects for the purpose of aiding
its members to become more slxillful and
efficient workers, the promotion of their
general intelligence, the elevation Of their
character, the regulation of their wages
and their hours and condition of labor,
the protection Of their individual rights in
the prosecution of their trade or trades
the raising of funds for the benefit of
death, disabled or unemployed members
or the families of deceased members, or
for such other object or objects for which
working people may lawfully combine
having in view their mutual protection or
benefit.
Certainly no one can question the le-
gality of an organization expressly au-
thorized by act of congress. for the pur-
pose Of "the regulation of their wages
and their hours and conditions of labor"
And equally clear is Mr.. Olney as to the
right to strike. point on which The
Sentinel has always laid particular stress.
He says:
But whatever may be the customary or
probable incidents or accomplishments of
a strike it cannot be ruled that there is
no such thing as a legal strike that
every strike must be unlawful. The nee
essary elements of a strike are only
three: Cd The quitting of work; (2) by
concert between two or more; CO stimuli
taneously and of themselves involve no
faint of illegality A strike becomes lille
gal when, TO these necessary features are
added others, such as a malicious intent
followed by actual injury, intimidation,
violence, the creation of a public nui-
sance or a breach of the peace Of any
sort.
The organization being legal, and the
right to strike clear. there remains only
the question of expediency on both sides.
He shows that nothing is to be gained
by dischargng men because they belong
to labor organizations, and makes
strong declaration for arbitration as the
best mode of settling labor troubles. 1t
is probable that there will be develop
ment of sentiment in favor of arbitration
among statesmen. and the opinion Of
man of Mr.. Olney's standing will adj
vance it with all thoughtful men. Mr.
Olney's summary of the reasons for and
against the discharge of men for member
ship in labor organizations, from the
standpoint of expediency, are so we'll put
that they deserve all possible prominence:
In short. the question being whether
business policy requires the court to ap-
prove the rule that member Of the
Brotherhood Of railroad trainmen is ipso
factO Ineligible as an employee of the re-
ceivers of the Reading railroad and an
officer Of the court, the conclusive con-
siderations may be summed up as fol-
lows:
1. The rule IS of doubtful value as a
preventive of strikes because it leaves
employees TO act upon impulse and from
passion and freed from the restraints of
the brotherhood regulations.
,. The rule is Of doubtful value when
the court is the real employer. both from
the reluctance of the employed to defy
the courts authority and from the power
of the latter to speedily and summarily
vindcate it.
3. The rule is of positively. injurious
tendency in the disaffection and discon-
tent engendered among employees by the
denial TO them of rights enjoyed by citi-
zens generally and deemed necessary for
their security and comfort.
4. The reputation of the rule. on the
tending to secure for the service the
good will Of employees and thus promoting
it's efficiency; (O of recognizing the real
conditions of the capital and labor prob
lem and the fact that labor both has the
right to organize and is organized; 90 of
illustrating the working under the most
favorable auspices Of the principle of ar
bitration as the means Of adjusting the
differences between capital and labor; "a
Of demonstrating that there is not one
law for class of the community and
another another, but the same for ALL
and of thus tending to preserve for the
law and for the judiciary by which 1t is
administered that general respect and con-
fidence which have always been a marked
characteristic as well as excellence of our
institutions.
The Sentinel believes that these con-
clusions are wise and correct In principle.
1t is important to the welfare Of the coun-
try that all bitterness. rancor and suspi-