The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1894-06-03

rOw1Es - = aECElvk1
Rvtnsspna rsa.as - JeAse nsafsssrs
Resent Doeis1ea.
Ths cpsDIon Of Jndgs Hanford sussain-
fne he demurrer Of Receivers Thomas r
Brosn and John b. Bryant II The Lake
Shore rod, 70 The pssition II Tbs grievance
cosnmittss Of she Brotherhood Of Railway
Tx1inmsn, Lodxe Ma fS6 and Of James y
Corcoran for m order requiring the re-
ce1vsn 20 conform 10 the contract mads ~
the brotherhood ufth tbs former manaKs-
mant al the road has bssn Hled In the office
Of the clerk sof the United States ccurk
The MAN result has bssn already made
known. but the decision - Of moro than
transient interest,"
The opinion rscitAs the terms Of the
contract made by the brotherhood with
the Northern Pseisc Management 81 the
road. which provides that no employe
shall b dischaSgsd except for cause and
that then he shall on demand b furnished
with . written specification Of the causs,
and shall have hight 70 IN invsstiga-
ton BY m arbitration COMMITTEES COM
posed Of the division superintsnd-
snt and three fFainmen. which
may take svidsnee and, II this committee
finds that there uas not sufficient cause
for dismissal, the man shall b restored.
The petition claims that Recsivsr Brown
continued the employees in their positions
and operated the road undsr this contract
Judes Hanford, while questioning tho
validity Of the contract - affecting the
employees Of the railroad company. places
his decision on the ground thst the ssipu-
lations described are not binding ON the
rscsivsY. He says that they can only be
binding ON the immediate parties to the
contract, and are rspugnant to the order
Of the court appointinS the rscsiver. He
continuss:
The idsa that employees in the service
Of railway corporation have such an
interest In the railway property. that
effect should b given to their contracts OF
employment ~ II they vere Of the same
nature - covenants running with the titlee
20 real estate, and therefore binding upon
those into whose hands the property may
subsequently come, 10 fallacious and with
out any foundation in Law. The receiver
a. IN agent Of the court, 10 required to
take full control Of the operation Of the
railway. and his responsibility il very
great. The nature Of his duties and re-
bpOU0tUktItt00 m8k0D ~ Uk00kUt8iy 00C08-
sary that he should exercise discretion In
the selection Of conductors and engineers
and all who occupy 6duciary positions
under him. And any rule or con-
tract binding him TO continue in
such positions persons With whom he Is
unable to maintain cordial relations
or repose confidence, 10 incompatible with
the freedom necessary to the proper sxer-
else OF his discretion and performances Of
Art IL - -
able to hold him responsible for the con-
duct Of an empioye kept in position by
. decision Of four arbitrators, three of
them being such persons fellow servants.
A contract 70 that effect, il intentionally
made by receiver, would be void, be-
cause It would necessarily deprive the re-
csivsr Of an Important part Of the power
vested In him BY the order Of his appoint
mont 4 receiver cannot lawfully thus
restrict himself in the exercise Of his
powers.
"This contract doss not obligats en-
ploves to continue in the service Of the
company for any definite period. As they
are left free 20 terminate their relations
with the company ct will. except In % Tar
- there may b IN implied obligation 70
not leave their stations % ~ 70 interrupt
the movement OF trains, ft ID in legal Of
feet . contract Of hiring for an indefinite
term. No legal claim FOR damages can be
rrsdicatsd upon the mere failure 70 keep
promise on the part Of ac employer 70 not
discharge IN smploye without cause or to
submit any question - to the existence or
non-sxistsncs Of sufficient cause to arbi-
tratlon: much less can court specifically
enforce such an agreement.
AN agreement 70 submit differences
which may arise in the future to arbitra-
tion. il IN general revocabls BY either
party. st any time before actual submits
sion OF . controversy. No stipulation in
the agreement will b sustained, either ct
Law or in equity. defeating this right 90 a
TO prevent the parties having recourse to
the courts.
poration's business. except through . gen.
sral agent A receiver % such agent.
therefore, occupies the position and has
the rights OF an employer. although
she men operating tho railway nm
der him are. in . certain sense.
employees of the court. Il IL
impracticable for the court to
give such attention to matters Of detail a.
would be necessary to justify IL in over
ruling receiver in the matter OF selecting
or discharging his subordinates. Only in
matters Of general policy can the court
give directions to . receiver. Grievances
OF his subordinates will receive attention
in eli matters affecting the general policy
Of the business entrusted to him, and
whenever they amount TO m accusation
against the receiver Of sufficient gravity to
justify his dismissal. The remedy proper
in case Of an abuse Of power in such mat
tiers Is removal of the receiver from office
Counsel for the petitioner, In his ar
gumcnt, has vigorously and earnestly de-
nouncod the action of Receiver Brown
In aischarging the petitioner, Corcoran, as
oppressive and abusive. 1t has never been
regarded ~ an act Of oppression or abuse
for successor in the control Of any busi-
ness To replace employees Of his predecessor
with men Of his own selection, and I do
not regard it 30 in this instance Accord
ing TO the petition. Mr.. Brown in ais
pensing with the services of Mr.. Corcoran
cast no aspersions upon him until In re-
Spouse to demands for reasons. no assigned
want of confidence in his honesty. Under
these circumstances cannot find any ius-
LITIGATION for the dsnunciation Of Mr..
Brown"
The Russian Press Ceusorship.
Yale Review.
No DAripdtrAi mr. stheF puhiyea ftor - -