The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1894-11-15
ORGANIZED LABOR.
ATTORNEY GENERAL OLNEY
GIVES HIS VIEWS THEREON.
Suggests That the Receivers of the
Reading Road Have no Right to
Order Employees to Abandon
Their Unions.

Philadelphia, Nov. S.-The controversy
between the receivers of the Reading
road and such employees as are members
OF the Railroad Brotherhood of Train
men have promoted an expression OF
opinion from Attorney General Olney in
the form of a letter to Attorney General
Dallas in the United States district
court, before whom the case is pending
Inc difference between the two reached
a crisis in August last, when General
Manager Sweigard summoned before him
several employees and notified them that
they should abandon their organization
II they wished to remain in the employ
OF the road. The policy of this company
is well known to be such that it will not
consent that persons in its service shall
owe allegiance to other organizations
winch makes claims upon them in
compatible with their duties to their EN-
ployers. This position was taken advis-
eddy, and we have no intention of de-
parting from it" said General Manager
SWeigard. Attorney General Olney's
Letter is an exhaustive discussion of the
questions presented, and he reviews the
various problems and the consistent So
lutions to be APPLIED in every respect. In
substance he holds that labor, morgan,
lied, is practically powerless, that in
combinations such as this lies the only
safeguard of the wOrkingman in his deal
lngs with organized capital, and that his
right to belong to such a union, bene-
neal in intent and purpose is a right
Whlch he cannot be deprived Of The let
ter is as follows:
Suggestions respecting questions rails
ed by petition of Hymas, Riley and other
members TO the Brotherhood of Railway
lralnmen, the pretense of this position
having been incidentally brought to my
attention, the issue raised impressed me
as OF great gravity and Importance, not
only as between the parties Immediately
concerned but as regards the country at
large. In that view, in which | could not
doubt the court would share, it seemed to
me that the court would not object to n
brief discussion of the case from public
point of view merely, and unintluenced
by the wishes and interests of the party
that are litigants before it, Upon this
suggestion being made to the court it
was at once cordially assented to. The
considerations following are, therefore,
submitted by me as amicus curae merely,
and by express leave of the court:
"First-The material facts may be
briefly stated. The petitioners are mem
bers of the Brotherhood of Railway Train
men. Some of them have been members
for seven or eight years, have each year
paid annual dues and assessments which
now amount to considerable sums of
money, and by continuing their member
ship will in case of death or permanent
disability become entitled, by themselves
or their representatives, to large pro-
visionary payments from the funds of
the Brotherhood. On the other hand,
by ceasing to be MEMBERS they loose all
benefit from the assessments and dues al
ready paid, and forfeit claims upon the
Brotherhood treasury. The constitution
and rules of the Brotherhood and of the
subordinate lodges are before the court,
Il part of the petition. No controversy
or antagoniSm has ever arisen or existed
between the Reading road and the
Brotherhood or any of its members, OF
between the Reading and the members of
the Brotherhood as such. If, as was
claimed, the Reading for some years has
adopted the rule that it would not have
in its service any member of an Organi-
cation, it is a rule which has not been uni
fOrmly and Invariably acted upon,
since there has been a Philadelphia lodge
of the Brotherhood on theReading line
for nearly eight years, and its existence
cannot have been unknown to the Read
ing officials.
What has now happened and what
has led to the present petition is this:
The Reading receivers have notified the
members of the Brotherhood on it's line
that unless they ceased to be such mem
bers they will be discharged from their
present employment on or before Oct.
s. The receivers make no complaint of
the manner in which the Brotherhood
employees discharge their respective du-
ties. The notice has been simply because
Brotherhood, as is conclusively shown
by the following telegram received by
Grand Master Wilkinson in reply to his
remonstrance against the course proposed
to be taken:
1.-The policy of this company is well
known to be that it will not consent that
persons in its service shall owe allegi-
ence to other organizations who may
make demands upon them which are in
compatible with their duties to their en-
ployers. This position was taken advisely
and we have no intention of departing
from it.
"Thus, if the receivers are right and
their rule is to prevail, membership of the
Brotherhood, by and of itself, in capaci-
tates for success on the Reading road, it
is respectfully submitted that the recev-
ers are wrong and that the action pro-
posed by them ought not to be sanctioned
by the court.
"Second-It will help to make plain that
precise question before the court to note
the opening words of the telegram just
quoted: THE policy of the company is
wei known to be etc, etc. Mr.. Harris,
who signs the telegram both as president
and as receiver, evidently forgot that the
company is no longer in control, that it
can have no present policy and that what
it's past policy was of slight cOnsc-
quence with the Reading, beng now in
the hands of receivers The receivers and
al the employees of the company are Of
ficers of the court. The court, therefore,
and not the company, is the employer of
the persons referred to in the petition Of
the road. The present policy Of the
court, and not the past policy Of the com
pany, is the thing to be considered, and
hence the precise question, vii the court
not lay down the rule that members of
the Brotherhood of Trainmen shall, be-
cause they are such members, be dis
charged from the service of the road,
"Third-The court, it is admitted
does not and cannot lay down any such
rule on the grounds that either the pur-
poses and objects of the Brotherhood or
the means by which they are to be at
tanned are shown to be illegal. The gen.
eral purposes or objects of the Brother
hood are stated in the preamble to the
constitution as follows: To unite the
railway trainmen, to promote their gener-
al welfare and advance their interests,
socially and intellectually, to protect their
families by the exercise of q systematic
benevolent society, needful in n calling
so hazardous as ours, this fraternity has