The morning call., 1894-11-09

sion of opinion from Attorney-General
Oney in the form of letter to Judge
Dallas Of the United States Circuit Court,
before whom the case is pending.
The difficulty between the two orgaDlZa-
tions reached crisis on August 10 last,
when General Superintendent Sweigard
summoned before him all employees and
notified them that they should abandon
the brotherhood as a oDditOn of retain
ing their places with the railroad company.
Vigorous protests were made against this
alternative and the brotherhood urged the
receivers to withdraw il, but in answer
the receivers on September II wrote:
The policy Of this company is well
known to be that it will not consent that
persons in its service shall owe allegiance
to other organizations which may make
claims upon them which are Incompatible
with their duties TO their employers. This
position was taken advisedly and we have
no in tention of departing from it,"
Attorney General Ouey's letter is an ex-
haustive discussion of the questions pre-
sented and be reviews the various prob
lens and the consistent solutions to be
applied in every aspect.
In substance he holds that labor unor-
combination such as this lies the only safe
guard of the workingman in his dealings
with organized capital, and that his right
10 belong to such a union-beneficia in in
tent and purpnse-is 4 legal right which he
cannot be deprived Of.
The letter is as follows:
Suggestions respecting questions raised
by the petition of Hymas, Ry!ey and other
ID
1rainmen. the tendency of this petition
having been incidentally brought to my
attention, the issues 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 l could not
doubt the court would share-it seemed
to NE that the court would not object 10 a
brief discussion of the case from public
point of view merely and uninfuenced by
the wishes and interests of the particular
litigaDts before il. Upon this suggestion
being made to the court it was at once cor
daily assented to. The considerations fol-
lowing therefore are submitted by me as
amicus curie merely, and by express
leave of the court.
tlrst-The material facts may be briefly
stated. The petitioners are members of
the Brotherhood of Railway Trainmen
Some of them have been members fol
seven or eight years-have each year pad
annual dues and assessments, which DOW
amount to considerable sums of money
and by continuing their membership, Will.
in case Of death or permanent disability.
become entitled by themselves or their
representatives TO large pecuniarv pay
ments from the funds of the brotherhood.
On the other hand, by ceasing to be mem
berS, they lose all benefit from the assess
ments and dues already paid and forfeit
claims upOn the brotherhood treasury
The constitution ana rules of the brother
hood and of the subordinate lodges are be-
fore the court as part Of the petition
No controversy or antagoDism has ever
arisen or existed between the Reading
Railroad and any members, as such mem
bers. AS it is claimed the Reading Rail-
road has for some years adopted the rule
that it would not have in its service any
member of Ia Dor organization, it is a rule
which has not been uniformly or inyaria bly
acted upon since there has been Phila-
delpha lodge of the brotherhood of the
Reading line for nearly eight years and its
existence cannot have been unknown
to the Reading officials. What has
now happened and what has led to
the present petition is this: TIE Reading
officers have notified the members of the
brotherhood on its line that unless they
cease to be such members they will be dis
charged from their present EN- pOyment on
or before October s. The receivers make
no complaint Of the manner in which e
brotherhood employees discharge their le-
spective duties. The uotce has been given
simply because Of such employees men,
bersnip Of the brotherhood, as is c0pclu-
sively shown by the following telegram
received by Grand Master Wilkinson. in
reply to his IeInonstrance against the
course 10 be taken:
The policy Of this company is well known 10
be that II will not consent that persons in its
service shall owe allegiance to other organiza.
lions which may make claims upon them which
ale Incompatible with their duties to their en-
ployers. This position was taken adyisedly
ana we nave no intention OF departing from il.
Jos. Ii. HARRIS, President aud Receiver
thus, If the receivers are right and their
rule Is to prevail that membership of the
brotherhood, by and of itself, incapacitates
Ior services on the road. ii is respectfully
submitted that the receivers are wrong
and that the action proposed by them
ought not to be sanctioned by the court.
Second-It will help to make plain the
precise question before the court TO n o,e
the opening words of the telegram iust
quoted: The policy of the COMPANY ia
we'll known to be-" ETC.. etc.
Mr.. Harris. who signs the Telegram,
both as president and receiver. evidently
forgets that the company is no longer in
control-.hat il can have no present policy
On the subject, and that what its past moi.
icy was is of slight consequence. The
Reading Railroad being now in the hands
OF the receivers, the receivers and the en-
ployes of the company are officers OF the
court. The court. therefore, and not the
company, is the employer of all the per-
sons engaged in the operations OF the road
The present policy of the court and no.
the past policy of the company is the ma
terial thing to be considered, and hence
the precise question is, will the court now
lay down the rule that nom bers of the
Brotherhood of Railway Trainmen shall
because they are such members be dis
charged from the service of the road?
Ihird-Ihe court, it is admitted, ough
not and can not lay down any sucn rule
until either the purposes and objects Of
the brotherhood or the means by which
they are TO be attained are shown to bt
illegal.
First-The general purposes and OBJ