St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1894-11-28
BROTHERHOOD IS BARRED.
Readings Rule Against the
Employment Of Union
Men Upheld.
SERIOUS BLOW FOR LABOR.
And in Direct Opposition to
the Recent Opinion Of the
Attorney General.

PHILADELPHIA, Nov. q. Judge Dali
las filed all opinion In the United States
circuit court today dismissing the petl-
tions of Lew Hicks and other members
of the Brotherhood of hallway Traln-
men, who desired to compel the recely>
erS of the Philadelphia IL Reading COM
pany to retain them in their employ.
and at the same time allow them to re-
main members of the organization. In
his opinion Judge Dallas makes no ref
erence whatever to Attorney General
Olney'S letter on the subject, ia which
the latter took the ground that the re-
ceivers were manifestly wrong III inter
fering with the employees as members
of the Brotherhood of Railway Train
men, and in which the attorney general
gave as his opinion that the men had a
perfect right to organize. Attorney
General Olney also held that an organ
izatiOn of this kind was not only bene-
fetal to the employees, but 10 the rail-
way comp ny as we'll, inasmuch as the
company were enabled to secure the
services Of thoroughly reliable men,.
Judge Dallas, i'll his opinion, which is
quite lengthy, says, among other things:
The subject matter of this litigation
was first brought to the attention of
court by the joint petition, filed Oct. s,
1894. of Stephen F. Wilkinson, Thomas
McDermOtt and George Il. Ruppel. act
ing for themselves and ali employees of
the Philadelphia q Reading Railroad
company, who are members Of the un-
incorporated voluntary association,
called the Brotherhood of Railway
tralnmen.
"rhe object Of the proceeding was TO
obtain an order restraining the receiv-
erS from acting in pursuance of notice
as follows: On or about the 15tii day
of August last, your petitioners were
notified that all members of SAID asso-
citation
Must Dissolve Their Connection
with the same on or before Oct. 8, or,
failing to do SO, would be discharged
from the service of the receivers.
II thought. as l still think, that
neither the association nor its chief
officer had any legal standing to be
heard in complaint of any action taken
woke or advise the disallowance of any
myasure adopted or contemplated by
them in the performance of the duties
assigned to them. They have made no
contract with or through this associa-
ton and none had been so made by the
company.
1.-The original petition having been
disposed or. Judge Dallas next takes up
the petitions of Levi Hicks and George
S. Riley, and disposes of them as fol-
lows:
both of these persons are in the
service of the receivers and both are
members Of the unincOrpOrated associ-
alton known as the Brotherhood of Rail
way Trainmen. A rule was adopted by
the railroad company in the year 1887,
and has since been maintained by it
and by the receivers, to the effect that
no one would be employed in its service
who was q member of such an associa.
ton, unless he would agree to withdraw
therefrom.
Levi Hicks was employed as brake
man on Oct. 90. 1898, the established
form Of application representing that
the applicant was not member of any
labor organization, or that if such
member, he would withdraw therefrom,
was presented to him for signature, but
he then declined to state whether or not
he was member of such an organiza-
tiOn, and thereupon he was employed
by subordinate agent of the receivers
and without their knowledge, or of the
general superintendent. On or about
Aug. 15. 1894, he was notified by letter
that unless he gave up his membership
in the Brotherhood he would he dis
charged. He still retained both his
membership and his employment, and
on Oct. s. the day OH which his original
petition was fled, and after it had been
presented, the general superintendent
had an interview with others of The en-
ployes, at which no threat was made of
discharge. but reference was made to
the agreements under which the men
had entered the service Of the company
and TO the rules of the company. aud
they
Did Agree to withdraw.
The proposed discharge of George s,
Riley has no connection with his menu
bershlp i'll the Brotherhood of Railway
Irainmen, but is caused solely by his
failure to satisfactorily perform his
duties.
The circumstances disclosed i'm the
case of Levi Hicks do not entitie him to
the lnterpoSltion of court of equity
on his behalf. Without an adimadyert-
ing upon his participation In the equiv
ocal and exceptional means by which
ne secured his present employment, 1t
may at least be said that his assumption
That tue fact that he SO secured employ
ment imposes upon the receivers an OBJ
legation TO retain him in it ought not to
be sustained.
The purpose to discharge Mr.. Hicks
unless he would resign from the assoca-
ton was communicated to. him about
two months prior TO Oct. s, and his
ptomise of that day was given simply
III the exercise of his right OF election
between the alternatives, which had
been previously presented 10 his choice.
Inc fact Is that lie did agree to sever
his connection with the brotherhood.
and though lii making his selection he
was doubtless confronted by dilemma
II was obvious that he was not in any
legal sense subjected to compuisiDn. But
IL Is necessary that | should. 8ld 1 do
not rest my Judgment upon. this tardy
agreement.
1t is at least certain that by making
1t Mr.. Hicks acquired no better position
-------------------------