Bismarck weekly tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1884-1943, 1894-11-09
0LNEY ON union LABOR
The Attorney General Thinks Men
Cannot Be Discharged Because Of
Membership.
AN EXHAUSTIVE REVIEW
Of the Subject in a Letter to Judge
Dallas Regarding the Famous
Reading Order.
AN EXHAUSTIVE REVIEW

As~A @ AAAo
prompted an expression of opinion
from Attorney General Olney in the
form of a letter to Judge Dallas Of the
United States circuit court, before
whom the case is pending. The diff
Guilty between the two organizations
reached a crisis OIL Aug. IL. when Gen
eral superintendent Sweigard sum-
moned before him II employees and no.
titled them that they should abandon
the brotherhood as a condition of re-
tanning their places with the railroad
company. Vigorous protests were
made against this alternative and the
brotherhood urged the receivers to
withdraw it, but in answer the receiv-
ers, on Sept. II, wrote;
The Receivers Side.
"The policy Of this company is we'll
known to be that it will not consent
that persons in it's service shall owe
allegiance to other organizations which
may make claims upon them which are
incompatible with their duties to their
employers. This position was taken
advisedly and we have no intention of
departing from it"
Attorney General Olney's letter is an
exhaustive discussion of the questions
presented, and he reviews the various
problems and the consistent solutions
to be applied in every aspect.
In substance he holds that labor I'M
organized is practically powerless, that
in combinations such as this lies the
only safeguard for the workingman in
his dealings with organized capital;
and that his right to belong to such =
union-beneficial in intent and purpose
is a legal right which he cannot be
deprived of.
MI. Olney's Letter.
After giving his reasons for writing
the letter, which was by express leave
Of the court, Attorney General Olney
says:
The material facts may be briefly
stated. The petitioners are members
Of the Brotherhood of Railway Train
men. Some of them have been men,
bers for seven or eight years, have
each year paid annual dues and assess.
ments which now amount to a consid-
cradle sum, and by continuing their
membership will, in case of death or
permanent disability, become entitled
by themselves or their representatives
to large pecuniary payments from the
funds of the brotherhood. On the
other hand, by ceasing to be members
they lose all benefit from the dues and
assessments already paid and forfeit all
claims upon the brotherhood treasury.
The Receivers Are Wrong.
If the receivers are right and their
rule is to prevail, that membership Of
the brotherhood by and of itself in.
oapacitates for service on the Reading
road, it is respectfully submitted that
the receivers are wrong and that the
action proposed by them ought not to
be sanctioned by the court.
The court, it is admitted, ought not
and can not lay down any such rule on
the ground that until either the pur-
poses and objects of the brotherhood,
or the means by which they are to
be attained, are shown to be illegal.
Mr.. Olney then quotes the aims and
purposes of the Brotherhood of Rail-
way Trainmen and continues:
Certainly these objects must be re-
garded as laudable in the highest de-
gree and as deserving the appreciation
and support of every good citizen.
These are indeed practically the same
as those for which the working people
Are Expressly Authorized
to incorporate themselves by act of
congress, the statutory description Of
such object being "for the purpose of
aiding it's members to become more
skillful and efficient workers, the pro-
motion of their general intelligence.
the elevation of their character, the
regulation Of their wages and their
hours and conditions of labor, the pro.
lection Of their individual rights in the
prosecution of their trade or trades, the
raising Of funds for the benefit of death.
disabled or unemployed members, or
the families Of deceased members. or
for such other object or objects for
which working people may lawfully
combine, having in view their mutual
protection or benefit"
Mr.. Olney then refers to the strike
provision in the brotherhood bylaws.
and after showing that strikes are not
unlawful, says:
Brotherhood Rules Prohibit Strikes.
It should be remembered in the first
place that the risks of a strike are not
obviated by excluding the members of
the brotherhood from the receivers
service. Men, deeming themselves
aggrieved and seeking relief OF redress,
though not associated in any formal
way or for any general purposes, may
easily unite for the single purpose of a
strike. In that view the brotherhood
constitution and rules may well be re-
'rded as operating in restraint Of
STU .. By compelling the question Of
strike = no strike to be acted upon af-
Tentatively by four or five different and
independent tribunals, they certainly
tend to prohibit a strike that is rash or
reckless Q. In weighty
cause.
In conclusion Mr.. Olney recommends
arbitration as the best mode of settling
differences between capital and labor.