The Wilmington daily Republican. (Wilmington, Del.) 1890-1902, 1894-11-09
ORGANIZATION LEGAL
Attorney General olney on the
Reading Controversy.
RECEIVERS ATTITUDE UNTENABLE

They Have No Right to Insist That the
Employees of the Company Shall Desert
the Brotherhood of Railway Trainmen.
Unorganized Labor Powerless.
PHILADELPHIA, Nov. o. The contro-
versy between the receivers of the Read
ing Railroad company and such of it's en-
ployes who belong to the Brotherhood Of
Railroad Trainmen has prompted an ex-
preston Of opinion from Attorney General
Olney in the form Of letter to Judge
Dallas, Of the United States circuit court,
before whom the case is pending.
The difficulty between the two organizar
tions reached crisis on Aug. Is last, when
General Superintendent Sweigard sum
moned before him eleven employees and
notified them that they should abandon
the brotherhood as q condition of retain
ing their places with the railroad company.
Vigorous protests were made against this
alternative, and the brotherhood urged the
receivers to withdraw 1t, but in answer tho
receivers, on Sept. II, wrote:
1.-THE policy of this company is well
known to be that 1t will not consent that
persons In its 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 unorganized Is practi-
cally powerless; that in combinations such
as this lies the only safeguard of the work
tngman in his dealings with organized
capital, and that his right to belong to
such union, beneficial in intent and pur-
poses, Is legal right which he cannot be
deprived Of
Attorney General olney's letter is In
part as follows;
"The petitioners arc members OF the
Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen. Some
of them have been members for seven or
eight years-havs each year paid annual
dues and assessments which now amount
to considerable sums of Inoney-and by
continuing their membership WILL in
case of death or permanent disability, be-
come entitled by themselves or their rep
resentatiyes to large pecuniary payments
from the funds of the brotherhood On the
other hand, by ceasing to be members,
and dues already paid and forfeit I'LL claim
upon the brotherhood treasury
sHThe constitution and rules of the
brotherhood and of the subordinate lodges
are before the court as part of the petition.
No controversy or antagonism has ever
arisen or existed between the Reading
railroad and the brotherhood or any of its
lodges, or between the Reading railroad
and any members of the brotherhood as
such members. If, as is claimed, the
Reading railroad has for some years
adopted the rule that it would not have In
its service any member of labor organi-
cation, it is a rule which has not been uni
for1nly nor invariably acted upon.
1.-THE Reading railroad being now in the
hands OF receivers, the receivers and all the
employees OF ths company are officers of
the court The court, therefore, and not
the company is She employer of all the
persons engaged in the operation Of the
road. The present policy of the court
and not the past policy Of the company
is the material thing to be considered And
hence tho precise question is: Will the
court now lay down the rule that mem
bers of the brotherhood of Trainmen shall,
because they art such members, be dis
charged from the esrvice of the roadp
"The court, It Is admitted, ought not
and cannot lay down any such rule on the
ground that either the purposes and OBJ
jects Of brotherhood, or the means by
which they are to be attained, are shown
to be Illegal"
Speaking of the aims and purposes of
the brotherhood, the attorney general says:
Certainly the objects must DO regarded
as laudable in the highest degree and as
deserving the appreciation and support of
every good citizen. They are indeed prac-
tically tho same as those for which work
ing people are expressly authorized to in
corporate themselves by act of congress
the statutory description of such objects
being for the purpose of aiding its MEM
bers to become more skillful and efficient
workers, the promotion of their general
intelligence, the elevation of their charac-
ter, tho regulation of their wages and their
hours and conditions of labor, the proteo-
ton of their individual rights, ," etc
Speaking of strike he says: at Is I'M
necessary to elaborate the proposition that
a strike is not necessarily unlawful since
1t is emphatically sustained by the recent
decision of the circuit court of appeals in
the Farmers Loan and Trust company vs.,
Northern Pacific Railroad company, lust
decided In Chicago"
1t should be remembered that the
risks OF o strike are not obyiated by ex-
Guiding tho members of the brotherhood
from the receivers service. Men deeming
themselves aggrieved and seeking relief or
redress, though not associated in any
way OF foT any general purposes, may
easily unite for the single purpose of
strike In that view the brotherhood con-
stitution and rules may well be regarded
as operating in restraint of strikes.
1.-THE best service Is not to be expected
from employees who smart under a sense
Of injustice and are in chronic state of
discomfort. Yet such is the inevitable
condition Of employees whose right to or
ganize for mutual protection and benefit
is attached and whose opportunity to labor
conditioned upon the sacrifice of that right.
They cannot help noting that organized
capital Is not SO restricted. u
I