The record-union., 1894-11-09
and purposes of the Brotherhood of Rail-
way Trainu,en

indeed, practically the same as those for
which the working people are expressly
authorized to incorporate themselves by
ACT OF Congress, the statutory descrip-
tlon OF such objects being TOR the purpose
OF aldlng its members to become more
sklllfuI and efficient workers, the pro-
motion OF their general intelligence, the
elevation OF their character, the regula-
ton OF their wages aud their hours and
condition of labor. the protection of their
individual rights in the prosecution of
their trade or trades, the raising of funds
Tor the benefit Of death, disabled or un-
employed members or the families of de-
ceased members, or for such other object
or objects for which working people may
lawfully combine, having in view their
mutual protection or benefit.
Ii the means to these praiseworthy
ends be now examined, there is nothing
III them to which the most captious critic
can object, except the provisions made
Tor strikes. 1t is well to note that even
these provisions are of an eminently
conservative character; that great care is
taken TO guard against the abuse of a
weapon which is a two-edged sword and
generally proves as damaging TO those
who use as to those against whom it is
used. Thus by the brotherhood consti-
tuition and rules a strike does not take
effect until approved, first, by the Local
Grievance Committee; second, by the
General Grievance Committee; third, by
Board OF Adjustment, and fourth, by
the Grand Master, with the consent of
two-thirds of the members involved,
while striking or melting to strike, OK
cept in accordance with the above rules,
is punished by expulsion from the broth
erhood.
Neither the less among the means of
accomplishing the ends of the brother
hood is the bringing about of a strike.
AS what strike is is not defined by
the brotherhood constitution and rules,
its precise nature must Oe determined by
the court; and as the brotherhood is en-
titled TO the ordinary presumption Of
lawfulness for it's methods, as well as Its
objects, until the contrary is shown, the
court will hold the thing termed strike in
the brotherhood constitution and rules to
be something lawful, unless there cannot
be such thing as a lawful strike.
But whatever may be the customary
or proba bic incidents of accomplishments
OF a strike, it cannot be ruled that there is
no such thing a legal strike; that every
strike must be unlawful. The necessary
elements of strike are only three
known: ID The quitting of work (2} by
concert between two or more 81 simulta-
neous and of themselves involve no taint
Of illegality. A strike becomes illegal
when to these necessary features are
added others, such as malicious intent, fol-
lowed by cruel injury, intimidating,
violence, the creation of public nuisance,
or a breach of the peace of any sort.
But 1t is not necessary to elaborate the
proposition that strike is not necessarily
unlawful, since it is emphatically sus-
tanned by the recent decision of the Cir
cult Court of Appeals in the Farmers
Loan and Trust Company VS.. the Nor
thern Pacific Railroad Company, lust
decided in Chicago, and it is hardly neces-
sary to point out that the attending cir
cumstances which often make strikes
unlawful are none of them provided for
by the brotherhood constitution and
rules, and cannot. therefore, be assumed
to be necessary incidents of any strike
occurring pursuant to them.
''If the rule that member of the
Brotherhood of Railway Trainmen shall
not work on the Reading Railroad cannot
be justified because of anything inher-
emily unlawful in the constitution and
rules of the brotherhood, the only re-
naming ground on which it can be de-
Tended is that of business expediency
1t is conceiving, though the
spectacle would be a curious one, that a
Court of the nited States may, on busi-
ness grounds, refuse employment to per-
SONS for no other reasons than their MEM
bership of an association whose purposes
the laws OF the United States expressly
sanction. But 1t is safe TO say that the
combination of business policy impelling
the Court to the course suggested should
be of the clearest and most cogent charac-
ter, and that the question presented is
one which the Court will recognize as of
the greatest interest and importance.
''In considering the question of the
business eXpediency of tie employment
of brotherhood men, such objection as
there is to it must arise from the fact that
under it's constitution and rules the en-
ployes may engage in a strike with all
the natural and possible incidents and
consequences. 1t can hardly be denied
that otherwise the brotherhood organiza-
ton is not only not Objectionable, but is
salutary in its operation both as regards
the employees and employers. 1t should
be remem Dered, in the first place, that the
risks of a strike are not obviated by eX-
Guiding the members of the brotherhood
from the receivers service. Men, Deem
ing themselves aggrieyed and seeking re-
lief or redress, though not associated in
any formal way or for any general pur-
pose, may easily unite for the single pur-
pose of a strike. In that view the
brotherhood constitution and rules NAV
well be regarded as operating in restraint
of strikes. By compelling the question
of strike or no strike to be acted upon
affirmatively by four or five different in
to prohibit a strike that is rash or reck-
less, or for other than weighty cause.
While, therefore, under the
circumstances OF the present case, the
possible evidence OF strike would seem
to be minimized, it should not be forgot
ten, in the second place, that the re-
ceivers' proposed remedy, 10 wit: a rule
excluding or discharging from service
any al! members of the brotherhood, is
itself open to serious objections and
disadvantages.
when treatment so apparently un-
fair and discriminating is administered
through the instrumentaiity of Court,
the resulting discontent and resentment
of employees are inevitably intensified,
because the law itself seems to have got
wrong. and in some manner to have
taken sides against them. Thus the
mischiefs apprehended from member
ship in the brotherhood by the receivers
employees lie wholly in the future, and
are as small as is possible in the nature
of things, while the mlschieis TO rise from
enforcing the receivers proposed rule
are real and immediate. Whether and
how far this may be regarded as offset
ting one another need not be discussed.
The rejection of the proposed rule may
reasonably be expected to be attended
with such substantial advantages that the
court can hardly hesitate as TO the course
which sound business policy dictates.
Not the least of such advantages is the
avoidance OF the necessity invidiousness
of illegal position that a man shall go
without work unless he will give up
legal right, right he may properly deem
essential to his safety and welfare. .
No better mode for the settlement of
contests between capital and labor has
vet been devised or tried than arbitra-
tion. and arbitration as mode of settling
difficulties between capital and labor
must necessarily be applied in the course
OF the receivership aud arbitration in its
best and most effective form. The court,
by appointing receivers, constitutes itself