The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1894-11-28

PHILADELPHIA, Pa, Nov N.-Judge
Dallas fled 40 opinion in the United
s,.,ss circuit court to-day dlsmissing
tina petitions Of Levi Hicks, and other
members Of the Brotherhood of Railway
Trainmen, who desired to compel the
rsceiyers Of the Philadelphia 4 Read
iuv Company to retain them in their
smploy, and at tho same time allow
than 10 remain me nbers Of the organ
nation. In his opinion Judge Dallas
makes no reference whatever to Attor-
psy General olney's recent letter on
the subject, in which the latter took the
ground that the receivers were mani
isstly wrong in interfering with the en-
0Ieyes as memhera OF the Brotherhood
Il hallway Trainmeu, and in which the
,ttorney general gave az his opinion
mat the men had perfect right to or
s,nize. Attorney General Olney also
held that organization OF this kind was
not only beneficial TO the employees, but
The railroad company as well, in as
much as the company were enable to
secure the service Of thoroughly relia-
bic men.
Judge Dallas. in his opinion, which
Il quite lengthy, says among other
things:
~ thought, as l still think, that
neither the association nor its chiet
officer had any legal standing to be
heard in complaint OF any action taken
or proposed by the receivers, or to in.
yoke or advise the allowance of any
measure adopted or contemplated by
them in the performance OF the duties
migned to them. They have made no
contract with or through this associa-
ton and none has been so made BY the
company"
The original petition having been dis
posed OF, Judge Dallas takes up the Pc
ii!ions Of Levi Hicks and George S.
: Riley and disposes Of them as follows:
"Bo,h Of these persons are in the ser-
vice o. the receivers, and both are MEM
ben Of the unincorporated association
known as the Brotherhood OF Railway
Trainnen. 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 enect that no ono
would be employed in its service who
vas member Of such an association,
unless he would agree to withdraw
iherefrom.
Levi Hicks was employed as brake
man on October 90, 1898. The estab-
llIhsd form OF application, representing
that the applicant was not member OF
any labor organization, or that il such
member, he would Withdraw therefrom,
was presented to him for signature, but
he then declined to state whether or
no. ne was a member Of such an organ.
nation, aud thereupon he was en-
ploysd by subordinate agent Of the
receivers. and without their knowledge
or tina. OF their general superintendent.
"0n or about August Is, 1894, he was
notified by the latter that unless he
rave up his membership in the BROTH
erhood he would be discharged. He
nil retained both his membership and
bis employment, and on October s, the
DAY on which his original petition was
aied, and after it had been presented,
The general superintendent had an in
'etview with others OF the employees, at
which no threat was made OF discharge,
but reference was made to the agree
nents under which the men had en-
tefed the service Of the company and TO
The rules Of the company, and they did
agree to withdraw. The proposed dis
charge Of George S. Riley mas no con-
aTeCtion with his membership in the
brotherhood Of Railway Trainmen, but
hcau.ed solely by his failure to salts
hetotlty perform his duties.
The circumstances disclosed in the
case o. Levi Hicks do not ontitle him to
ae interpretation Of court OF equity on
MS behalf. Without amin madvcrting
upon his participation in the equivocal
snl exceptional means by which he &C.
cured his present employment, it may,
a. least, be said that his assumption
Nat the Tact that he so secured employ
% Ient imposes upon the receivers an
eoication 10 retain him in it ought not
10 be sustained.
Tue purpose TO discharge Mr.. Hicks
gnIess he would resign from the assOcia.
Moa was committed TO him about two
months prior to October G, and his
promise on that day was given simply
j" .ue exercise OF his right Of election,
SsnS Tue alternatives which had been
s'iou'ly presented to his choice. Tho
,ass Is mat he did agree to sever his
junction with the brotherhood, and
Saoash in making his selection he was
S'uotIesa confronted by dilemma, it
I| oo'Ious tEat no was not in any
ps.' pss, aease subjected to rompuision.
~ " Is not EvS-sslTy that should and
,,. EI ho' rest my judgment upon this
"iiy agreement.
VI. Tis at least csrtAin by making it
,t.. ~ hicks acquired no better position
!, 1' ne Obtained before. aud, without
A., A. an OF the opinion that the rsceiy-
m'. MI would haVo beon iustilied in dis.
hin MN upon grounds peculiar to
In.,' e"d wholly irrespective OF tho
SJ i1,u question, which he has attompt.
~. 70 oo'FudO into his case. 1t results
m'S my the petitioner, Hicks, hns not
,oiii9 u9 out case emitting him to the
mn,. us which ho seeks, aud 1t il even
S'Tse ~, tnaniies. that the case OF George
1TiIioy Is utterly devoid OF equity.
bo,h tiete discussion might well ond and
"0i petitions bo dismlsscd."
B,nS"sEo Dallas then takes up tho
Iar., Iao'"e,nood hood oi Railway Trainmen mud
m, ', ihe real question, however, il
va, "IHetheF tho Brnthnrhood of Rail.
tbc ltAnmcn is or is not inimicnI to
lsc.i,,raI Ei"neraI welfare, but whether these
ns,Hns ngtois should he ordered to retain i,s