The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1894-11-28
OLNEY is IGNORED
PETITION OF RAILROAD TRAINMEN
Is DISMISSED.
Judge Dallas of the Opinion That
Hicks Dismissal Was Justif1abie-
Trainmen Not Corporation ana
ifit Were. it Could Not Dictate to
Another Corporation.

PHILADELPHIA, Nov. 27.-Judge Dallas
Gled an opinion in the United SIaIts CIT
cult court, Diminishing the petitions Oh Lew
Hicks and other members of the brolner-
hood of Railroad Train men who desired 10
eompel the receivers Of the PnliadeIphla
and Reading company 70 retain then III
their employ. and at the same Time aiiO"
them to remain members OF the orsa'l.|'
lion In his opinion Judge Dallas makes
no reference whatever to Attorney 1ehera'
Olney's recent letter Oh the supJ -c' III
which the latter took the ground thaI Tie
ceceivers were manifestiy wrong III inter
Eering with the employees as members OF
he brotherhood OF Railway 1ralnmen ana
IN which the attorney general gave MS
,ninioa that the men had a perfect rlghI
70 organize.
Judge Dallas, in his opinion, which is
nuite lengthy saws among other things:
.'The subiect matter OF this litigation was
first brought to the attention OF the conrt
by The iolnt petition, tiled OCTOBER Q, io'4'
NJ SIepheu T.. Wilkinson, Thomas McDer-
mott and George II. Ripple, acting Tor
themselves and ali employes OF tue fnlia-
delnhis and Reading Railroad company
who are members of an unIncorrorateo
voluntsry association called the Brother-
hood of Railway Tralnmen.
HADNo LEGAL STANDING
1.-THE object Of lie proceeding was 10
obtain an order restraining the receivers
from acting in pursuance OF hotlce Us
follows: &c
auoust last. YOUR petitioners were notified
that ALI members of the association must
dissolve their CONNECTION with Inc same on
or before Oct. 5, or falling 10 do SO Would
he discharged from the service oI the re-
ceivers.'
-besssociatlop nor its chief officer had any
legal standing to be heard in complaint OF
any action taken or proposed by the re-
criyer<. or 10 invoke or advise dlsailowance
of anv measure aiop-d or contemplated
by them in the performance OF Tue uuU'es
assigned 10 them. They have made no
contract with or through this association
and none had been made by the company.
The original petition having been dis
posed of, Judge Dallas next takes up the
p-titious Of Levi Hicks and George ,.
Riley and disposes OF them as follows:
Both of these persons are III the service OF
the receivers and both are membetS OF the
unincorporaied association known as the
brotherhood of Railway Trainmen. A
rnle was adopted by the railroad company
in the year 1857 aud has since Deen mhln-
taired by il and by the receivers TO the ell
feet that no one "Ouih ~ 49,
service who WA member of such an as
sociafjon unless he would agree TO with
draw therefroln.
HICKS CHARGED WITH CRooKEDNEsS-
Levi Hicks was employed as brakeman
on Oct 20 1893 The established form of
appiication, representing that The appli-
caui was not member OF any LABOR organ
iz,tion or that if such member he would
withdraw thereirom, was presented TO
HIM for signature, but he then declined 10
state whether or not he was a member OF
such an organization, and thereupon be
was employed 10y subordinate agent OF
The receivers, and without their knowledge
or that of the general superintendent. On
M about Aug. -. 1894, he was notified 10y
the latter that unless he gave up his mem
bersbiD In the brotherhood he would he
disc aarged.
..ITe Still retained both his membership
and ais employment and Oh Oct 8, the
day on which Its original petition was
filed and after ii had been presented 10 the
gen rnl superintendent, had an lntervle"
with OF hers of the employees, at which nc
threats WAS made OF discharge, out REFER
ence WAS made to the agreements under
which the men had entered the service ol
HE company and to the rules OF the com
pany aud they did agree to withdraw.
NOT ENTITLED TO RELIEF
The proposed discharge of George ,
Riley has no connection with his mem ber-
shin in the brotherhood of Railway Train
men but it is caused solely by his failure
TO satisracI orily perform his duties
The circumstances disclosed IN the caS'
Of Levi Hicks DO not entItle HIM TO the ia
ferDosition of u court OF equity on his be
half. Without mountaineering upon hl'
pariicipatiou in The equisocal aud eX
ceptioual means by which he secured u
present employ ment II may at least d
said that his assumption that the fact ina
he so secured employment imposes upo'
the receivers ala obiigat on TO retain LIN
in IL ougnJ not 10 De sustained
The puri ose to discharge Mr.. Hick
unless be would resigr from the associH
non was communicated 10 him about wv
months prior To Oct. ;. ana III
promise on that day WAS given slmpi
i'm the exercise Of his right OF election De
tween the alternatives, which had bee
previously presented 10 his choice. In
TACT il be dli agree to sever his connectlo
with the broi herhood, and though IN mas
ing his selection he Was doubtless cor
frouted by n dilemma, It was obvious thS
hp was not in any legal sense subjected
commission But il l. not necessary that
shouId and do lot rest my JudgmeI
nUon this tarGy agreement.
RECEIVER JUSTIFIED IN ANY CASE
sIg is at least certain that by making
Mr.. Hicks acquired no batter position tina
he obtained before aad without II. al
d The UplnlUa IHab Ahc ASSSI'eI
would have been justified in di
missing him upon grounds pecuil'
10 him and wholly irrespective
he bread question which he has attempts
20 obtrude into his case. Il Results TIN
he petitioner, Hicks. has not made ont
ease eutitling him TO the relief which
seeks. and iJ Is even more manifest th'
he case of George :. Riley Is utterly G
void Of equity
Judge Dallas then takes up the BrotI
.rhood II Railway Iralnmeu md says:
The real QUESTION. however, Is u
whether the brotherhood OF Rsllw'
rrsiumen i, or Il not, luImlcaI TO the 60
sral welfare, but " neither these receive
should be ordered TO retain its memh ers
heir service despite ;he cempanys pG
kissing rule 10 the contrary, and again
heir own unanimous Judgment.
That the contemplated action IS q
unlawful l. too plain Tor argument. Tn
L coutravenrS public policy j. asserte
But how can this De established? kno
II no means of ascersalnlng the policy
he public IN relation TO personal rigL
but 10y consulting the public laws. II
particular association i not a corporate
put il il wss il ould not follow. - seeI
20 be supposed, thaU II would righttu
insist upon the retention OF Its mem bers
the >ervice OF another corporation agaiI
us WILL
MAY PAY It OVER,
WASHINGTON, Nov. 21.-TAe Puyall
commission, now at Tacoma. Wash,