The Redwood gazette. [volume] (Redwood Falls, Minn.) 1873-1940, 1894-11-15
UNIONS NOT ILLEGAL.
ATTORNEY GENERAL OLNEY GlvESA
OPINION

Membership in Brotherhoods Is Not 4
Sufficient Cause for Discharge Organi-
cation Of Labor the Only Means Of So
curing Proper Recognition Of Rights
From Organised Capital.
PHILADELPHIA, Nov. 9.-The contro-
versy between the receivers of the
Reading Railroad company and such
employees as are members Of the Broth
erhood of Railway Trainmen, has
prompted an expression 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 diff
Guilty between the two organizations
reached a crisis on Aug. IL. when Gen.
eral Superintendent Sweigard sum-
moned before him II employees and no
titled them that they should abandon
the brotherhood as 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 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
incompatible with their duties to their
employers. This position was taken
advisedly and we have no intention of
departing from il"
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 UNI
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-benefcial in intent and purpose
is a legal right which he cannot be
deprived of.
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 CIR eight years, have
each year paid annual dues and assess
ments which now amount to 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.
Ii the receivers are right and their
rule is to prevail, that membership of
the brotherhood by and of itself in
capacitates 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 arc indeed practically the same
as those for which the working people
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,
UlSdDl0U VI unemployed mcLAU0rS, OT
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:
1t should be remembered in the first
place that the risks OF strike are not
obviated by excluding the members of
the brotherhood from the receivers
service. Men, deeming themselves
aggrieved and seeking relief or 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-
garded as operating in restraint of
strikes. By compelling the question of
strike or no strike to be acted upon af.
&rv,o %;x,o1x, 1x, four nv five 1ifforon< o,,I