The representative. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1893-1901, 1894-11-14

PHILADELPHIA, Nov S.-The contro-
versy between the receivers of the Reading
railroad and such employees are members
of the Brotherhood of Railway Tranmen
has prompted an expression of opinion from
Atty.-Gen. Olney III the form of a letter
to Judge Dallas, of the United States cir
cult court, before whom the case is pend
ing. The difficulty between the two organi-
cations reached a crisis on Aug 1e last,
when General Superintendent Sweigard
summoned before him II employees and noti-
ned them that they should abandon the
brotherhood as a condition of retaining
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 receivers, on Sept. II, wrote:
''The policy of this company is we'll
known to be that it will not consent that
persons i'll it's service shall allegiance
to otter 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,"
Atty.-Gen Olney's letter is an exhaustive
discussion of the question 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 practically powerless, that
in combinations such as this lies the only
safeguard of the workingman in his deal
lngs with organized capital; and that his
right to belong to such q union-bene-
fetal in intent and purposes a legal
right which he cannot be deprived &c.
The letter is as follows:
OLNEY'S LETTER
Suggestions respecting questions raised
by petition Of Hymas, Riley and other
members of the Brotherhood of Railway
Trainmen, the tendency of this petition
having been incidentally brought to my
attention, the issues raised impressed me
as of great gravity and Importance, not
only as between the parties Immediately
concerned. but as regards the country at
large. In that view-in which l could not
doubt the court would share-it seemed
to me that the court would not object to
n brief discussion of the case from pub
lie point of view, merely and uninflu-
enced by the wishes and interests of the
particular ltigants before it. Upon this
suggestion being made to the court, it
was at once cordially assented to. The
considerations following therefore are sub
mitted by me as an amicus curia mere
~ and by express leave of the court.
First. The material facts may be brief
ly stated. The petitioners are members
of the Brotherhood of Railway Trainmen.
Some of them have been members for
seven or eight years-have each year paid
annual dues and assessments, which now
amount to considerable sums of money
and by continuing their membership will,
IN case of death or permanent disability,
become entitled by themselves or their
representatives to large pecuniary pay
ments from the funds of the broth erhood.
On the other hand. by ceasing to be mem
bers they lose all benefit from the assess
mentS and dues already paid and forfeit
all claims upon the brotherhood treas
ury. The constitution and rules of the
brotherhood and of the subordinate lodges
are before the court a part of the petit
ton. No controversy or antagonism has
ever arisen or existed between the Read
ing railroad and the brotherhood and any
of its lodges, or the Reading road and any
members such members.
As it is claimed, the Reading railroad
has for some years adopted the rule that
it would not have in its service any mem
Der of a labor organization, it is a rule
which has not been uniformly nor invaria-
bly, acted upon, since there has been a
Philadelphia lodge of the brotherhood OF
the Reading line fer nearly eight years
and It's existence
CANNOT HAVE BEEN UNKNOWN
to the Reading officials. What has now
happened and what has led to the present
petition is this: The Reading officers have
notified the members Of the brotherhood
on its line that unless they cease to be
such members, they will be discharged
from their present employment on or be-
fore Oct. s. The receivers make no COM
plant of he manner in which the brother
hood employees discharge their respective
duties. The notice has been given simply
because of such employees membership
of the brotherhood, as is conclusively
shown by the following telegram received
by Grand Master Wilkinson, in reply to
his remOnStrdnce against the course pro-
posed to 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 which may make
claims upon them which are incompati-
BILE with their duties to their EMPLOYERS
This position was taken advisedy and we
have no intention of departing from it.
JOSEPH H. HARRIS
president and Receiver"
Thus, if the receivers are right and
their rule is to prevail, membership of the
brotherhood by and of itself incapacitates
for services on the Reading railroad it
is respectfully submitted that the receivers
wrong and that the action proposed
by them ought not to be sanctioned by
the court.
Second. 1t will help to make plain thai
precise question before the court to note
the opening words OF the telegram juS
quoted, THE policy of the company is
well known to u.s." etc, etc.
Mr.. Harris, who signs the telegram botI
president and receiver. evidently for.
gets that the company is no longer in
control-that it can have no present policy
on the subject and that what its nast
policy was is of
SLIGHT CONSEOU ENCE.
The Reading railroad being now in the
hands OF receivers, the receivers and the
employees of the company are officers OF
the court. The court, therefore, and not
the company, is the employer of all the
persons engaged in the operations 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 the precise question is will the
court now lay down the rule that members
of the brotherhood of Trainmen shall
because they are such members be dis.
charged from the service of the road?
Third. The court, it is admitted ought
not and cannot lay down any such rule or
the ground that until either the purposes
and objects of the brotherhood or the
means by which they are to be attained
are shown to be Illegal.
% The general purposes and objects OF
the brotherhood are stated in the preamble
to the constitution follows:
ITO unite the railroad trainmen, to pro
mote their general welfare and advance
their interests, socially and intellectually
10 protect their families by the exercise Of
a systematic benevolsrce society, needfu
in Il calling so hazardous as ours, this fra
ternity has been organized.
Persuaded that it is for the interest:
49,