The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1894-11-09
OF INTEREST TO LABOR
lltsslsy General ollsy Dkslxa tis
lsalIl6 CsltfsVsny.
BRoTHERHo ooDoR TRAINMEN
Their Case 10 Now at ear-Mr. o..
nsy Declares the Receivers
Of the Railroad Are In
the Wrong.

Ing railway compauy and such Of the en-.
ployss - Are msmbeTs of the Brotherhood
Of Railroad Trainmsn, has prompted an
sxpressiou Of opinion from Attorney Gen.
eral 0luey In the form of letter to Judge
Dallas q the United 6tates circuit court,
before whom tho case b pending. The
difaculty bstwssn the two organizations
reached . crisis On Ana. u, last, when
General Supseiuteudsnt Svslsard sum-
monsd bsfocs him al employees and mott.
ned them they should abandon the
brotherhood - . condition Of retaining
thslr places with the railroad company.
vigogoas protests wsre made against this
alternative and tho brotherhood urged the
receivers to withdraw II. but IN answer
tee sseeivers, On Sept. ~, wrotss "Ths
policy oe this company 10 we'll known 10
bs that u win not consent that psrsons In
its ssevles shall owe allesiaucs to other
organisatlous which may mako claims
upon them which are incompatible With
their duties TO their employers. This 20.
sltlon vas taken advisedly and ws have
~ intanttea u departing from H."
Attorney Gsnssal Olnsy's isttsr q "a
exhaustive diseussion Of the question
pseesntsd and b rsviews various prob.
iems and coosistsnt solutions 70 b ap.
plieds In every aspsct. In substance hs
holds that Labor unorHanissd 10 psxc.
tteally powsrisss; that In combination
such a. this lies tho only safeguard Of
the workin9msn In his dealings with or.
eAnised capital and that his right 10 BE-
long to such uniou-bsnsdcia In intsut
and purpose-isa legal right which he
cannot b deprived Of. The attorney zen.
eral says; ''Susgestions rsspeetine quss.
tons raised by the petition Of Aymas,
Riley and other msmbsrs Of the Brothos.
hood oe Railroad Trainmsu, the psndsucy
of this petition having been intellectually
brought b my attsntion, the Issues raised
inpsscssd mo - Of great gravity
and importance not only - bs.
tween parties Immediately concerned
but % regards the country at
large. IAe material facts may b briefly
stated. TIE petitioass arc members Of
the Bsothsrhood Of Railroad Trainmen.
THY havs each year paid annual dues
aad assessmsnts which now amount 10
eoosi6esab1s suns q mensy, and b. con.
| Lclnnlo9 NJ msmhesshlp. will In ths caas
041oaA % pesmanent disability become
eoeitled ~ themselves o. their rsprsssu.
tativee - large pscuniasy paymsnss
from funds of The heo4hsrhood.
~The Resding railroad has foe some
yeass adoptsd The rule that Il would noe
have II IL seeviee any member Of Q lahsr
ee9ooi1Atiou. It h o rule that has uoe
been uniformly OF invariably astsd upon,
et1oo thseo has been PhiladslphiA lodge
q W. beoshsehood Of the Reading line foe
neasly eight pears and its sxistsnes ean.
- b unknovn 10 the Beading Officials.
What has now hsppsnsd and what has
I'D 70 ths present petition u thiss TIE
Raading olneers have notified msmbses
Ct The beotherhood that unlsss they csass
70 b msmbsrs they viii b discharged on
a. before Oct. 8. The rsesivsrs make No
complaint Of tho manner In vhich the
beoshsshood employees dischargs their -.
specfivs duties. II the rsceivers ars right
and their rule is to prevail, the msmbsg.
shlp Of the brotherhood by and Of itself
innApaeitstes for service on the road. II
b respectfully submitted that the rscoiv.
60 ase wrong and that the action pro-
posed by them ought not to b sanctioned
by the courts.
"Ths Reading railroad bsing now In the
bands Of the receivers, the receivers and
The employees Of the company arc oiilcsrs
q the court.
~Ths court, therefore, and not the com.
pany 10 the employer Of all persons en-.
eAesd In the operation Of tho road. The
peessnt policy Of the court and not the
past policy OF the company 10 o material
thing 10 b considered and hence the pre-
else question ID, will the court now lay
dsvn rule that members Of the Brother.
hsed ef Trainmsn shall. because they an
sa,sA msmbsrs, b discharged from services
g tAs read? The court, IL 10 admitted
eaeht 1ot and cannot lay down any such
rule - the ground that until either pur.
poses and objects OF the brotherhood OF
the means by which they are to be
attained, are shown to be illegal.