The potters herald. [volume] (East Liverpool, Ohio) 1899-1982, 1948-07-15

and that the defePateS Ielt tnat II
was necessary to raise his salary
in order to keep him in the Broth
erhood. This might show the neces-
sity Of raising the salary and even
Of striking from SIS that part
stating that resolutions pertaining
to National Officers salaries is
permitted only in the off year"
but it shows no necessity for strik-
ing from SIS the provision that
resolutions calling for changes in
the salary Of National Officers
must be referred to the trade"
Following the action of the Con-
vention the action Of the officers
themselves in finding that II Of
the Resolutions submitted to them
were "illegaP showed a most amaz-
ing coincidence.
The Defendants contend that
the Court is bound by the Minutes
of the Executive Board meetings.
The Court is not so boundl The
Resolutions should be in the files
of the National Secretary, and if
they could not be found it is not
persuasive for the Defendants to
argue that the duty was upon the
Plaintiffs to dig up these records
from the Local Unions. 1t is a
general principle of law that no
one should be allowed to take ad-
vantage Of his own carelessness or
wrong doing; and it is fair infer
ence that the requests Of the IL
Locals followed their notices in
the Potters Herald.
The officers knew what the Lo-
Gals desired and could have, as they
did in finally submitting s75,
called for referendum on their
salaries. The specific authority for
this is granted them by sos
which reads as fOllows:-
"The Executive Board shall have
power to recommend to the trade
for action any question it may deem
necessary. Any laws which, after a
fair trial, are found to be imprac-
ticable, shall be referred to the
trade, and it shall take major
ity vote to repeal them"
The Defendants contend, how
ever, that even in an equity case if
their actions are within the law the
Court has no right to punish them
for a mere moral dereliction. In
this contention they are correct;
and they are entitled to stand or
fall on the question of the legality
of their acts under the Constitu-
tion of the Brotherhood.
The Defendants contend that by
virtue of SO the Convention had
a perfect right to strike out the
last four lines of SIS.
If the Convention had such right
| it also had the right to strike out
all of $50 and to take from the
members their right to referendum.
Is this the correct Interpretation OF
these Sections of the Constitution ?
According to s o. JUR., 148, 5
AZ under the Title "CONSTITU-
TIONAL LAW" it is stated
at is a we'll established princi-
pie of constitutional construction
that when general and special pro-
visions of a Constitution are in
conflict, the latter control; spec
ial provisions relating to subject
will control general provisions in
which, but for such special provi-
sions, the subject might be regard
ed as embraced. This rule, however
has no application to a situation
where the Court is considering ar
amendment to the Constitution, the
latest expression of the electors
on the subject. To such latest ex-
preston must yield all the earlier
provisions of the Constitution which
are inconsistent with it"
It is therefore my opinion that
when $50 and SIS were
adopted the Conventions no long
er had the right to repeal any part
of said Sections, and that such
Sections having been passed fol-
the protection of all the members,
they could only be repealed by a
vote of the trade.
1t is to be noted that the last
sentence of $50 which was in
force for many years prior to the
Convention of 1914, is as follows;
"a vote of the trade shall have
precedence over the vote of the
delegates in convention"
If Mr.. Watkins is correct in his
testimony that SIS was adopted
bv referendum of the trade then
there is no question but that such
Section could not be repealed by
the Convention.
| 1t is therefore my opinion thal
the Convention was without author
ity to repeal the last four lines OF
SIS and that their Resolution to
that effect was invalid. 1t follows
that the change in officers salar-
/ les could not be effective until il
had been submitted to the trade.
The Defendants contend that on
Friday afternoon, June 80, 1914, the
delegates struck out the last -four
lines of SIS, that thereupon the
referendum provision of said Sec