Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1894-11-09
"LAB0R'S RIGHTS
Attorney-GeneraI oIney De-
fines Them.
ORGANIZATION is PROPER
If They Wish to Get Their lust
Dues.


troversy between the receivers of the
Reading railroad and such employees
as are members of the brotherhood
OF Railway Trainmen, have prompted
an expression of opinion from Attor-
ney-General olney in the form of
letter to Attorney General Dallas In
the United states district court. be-
fore whom the case Is pending. The
difference between the two reached
crisis in August last. when General
Manager sweigard summoned before
Kim Several employees and notified
them that they should abandon their
organization il they wished TO remain
in tne eiupioy Of tine road,
Tine poney OF lnis company is'well
known 10 be tngt 1t WIN not consent
that persons Al Its service shall owe
allegiance to otner orgauiz9 tlona which
make claims upon them wnere In
compatible with their duties 10 their
employers. THIS position was taken
advisedly and we nave no intention
OF departing from 1t" said General
Manager 5WeiEard.
Attorney General Olney's letter is an
exhaustive discussion OF the questions
presented, and he reviews the various
problems anu the consistent solutions
substance he holds that labor unor-
ganlzed is practically noweriess, that
In combinations sucn as this lies the
only safeguard OF the nottingham in
his dealings with organized capital
and that his right to belong to such
union, beneficial in Intent and pur-
pose, 10 a right which he cannot be de-
prived OF. The letter Is as follows:
suggestions respecting questions
raised by petition OF Hymas, Riley and
other members OF the Brotherhood of
Railway Trainmcn. the pretense OF
this position having been incidentally
brought To my attention. the issue
raised impressed me as af great gray
ity and Importance, not only as be-
tween the parties Immediately con-
cerned, but as regards the country at
large. In that view, In which |
could doubt the court would share 1t.
1t seemed TO me that the court would
not object to brief discussion of tie
case from a public point OF view mere
~, and unintluenced by the wishes and
interests Of the party that are liti-
giants before It, Upon this suggestion
being made to the court 1t was at
once cordially assented to. The con-
siderations 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
members of the Brotherhood ef Rail-
way Tralnmen Some OF them have
been for seven or eight years. Have
each year paid annual dues and as
sessments, which now amount TO con-
siderable sums of money and by con-
tlnuing their membership WILL in case
OF death or permanent disability, be-
come entitled by themselves or their
representatives, 20 large provislonary
payments from the funds OF the broth
erhood. on the other hand by ceasing
TO be members they lose all benefit
from the assessments and dues all
ready paid and forfeit claims upon the
brotherhood treasury. The constitu-
lions and rules of the brotherhood and
of the subordinate lodges are before
the court a part of the petition. No
controversy or antagonism has ever
arisen between the Reading road and
the brotherhood or any of the lodges.
or between the Reading and the mem
bers OF the brotherhood as such mem
beers. IL, as is claimed, the Reading for
some years has adopted the rule that
IL would not have in its service any
member OF an organization, 1t Is a
rule which has not been uniformly nor
invariably acted upon. since there has
been a Philadelphia lodge Of the broth
erhood on the Reading line for nearly
eight years. and It's existence can not
have been unknown to the Reading
officials. What has now happened and
what has led to the present petition is
this:
"rhe Reading receivers have notified
the members Of the brotherhood on its
line that unless they ceased 10 be sucn
members they would be discharged
from their present employment on or
before October s. The receivers make
"a a.. tlslaf Lob
the brotherhood employees discharge
their respective duties. The notlce has
been SIMPLY because OF such employees
membership IN the brotherhood as Is
conclusively shown by the following
telegram, received by Grand Master
Wilkinson in reply TO mis- remonstrance
against the course proposed 10 be
taken:
/" 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 VINO
may make demands upon them which
are Incompatible with their duties 10
their employers This position was
taken advlsedly and we have no inten-
ton OF departing from It.
Thus, II the receivers are right ana
their rule Is TO prevail, membership in
the brotherhood by and OF ITSELF In
cupaclltlth loF htINftN oii NhN ~
road, It IL respectfully submitted thar
the receivers are wrong and that the
action proposed by them ought not TO
be sanctioned by the court.
SECOND, It VIII help to make plain
that precise question before the court
10 note the opening words Of the tele-
gram lust quoted. The policy OK the
company is well known to be- etc.
Mr.. Harris who signs the telegram
both as president and receiver. eNl-
IDENTIFY forgets that the company Is 70
longer In control; that u can have no