leans in 1885, when the convention enacted an addition to the qualification for membership in the B. of L. E. as follows: "and is not a member of any other labor organization at the time of his election." This was not intended to harm members of the B. of L. F. in the least. The writer, as a delegate, voted for this measure, and we do not believe that any fireman who was ever associated with him or was in the same locality where his influence was felt, will say that he had not always been a friend to them. On returning to his own Division he told the dual members why ho thought it best that they should be under a single obligation; that they should not occupy the position of go-betweens, and they withdrew, and both felt it for the best. But to better understand why the law was enacted, a little more history is necessary.

The B. of L. E. has always stood for the absolute maintenance of contractua relations with every employing company who would make contracts to govern pay and conditions, and at the period of the New Orleans convention, the Knights of Labor were a large factor in organized labor affairs, and many members of the B. of L. E. had joined them, and other engineers not yet members of the B. of L. E. were members of the K. of L., and it was felt that this dual membership and obligation was not only incompatible with the interest of engineers, but would make our obligation to contract a nullity in case of a strike of other orders to which such members might have obligated themselves. Whoever was at the New Orleans convention will remember that there were no reflections cast upon the B. of L. F. and, on the contrary, that they were eulogized by many who took part in the debate of this important proposi ion; but the majority, recognizing that the K. of L occupied a large place in the affairs of organized labor, did not desire to antagonize them by making a specific law applying to the K. of L. only, and, as a compromise, enacted the law that applicants for membership must not be elected to membership if a member of any other labor organization, and we do

not believe that law or, others of a like nature which have followed, have been of the slightest injury to the B. of L. F. as an organization protecting the interests of those for whom it was organized-locomotive firemen The present Secretary and Treasurer of the B. of L. F., Bro. W. S. Carter, in a letter to the B. of L. F. magazine in January, 1894, page 64, said an undeniable truth in a paragraph which reads:

"The lack of harmony between labor organizations can be ascribed to three causes: 1. Personal ill feeling between representative grand officers. 2. Mixed organizations infringing upon class organizations. 3. Trivial incidents that will arise just as long as man's humanity to man is a characteristic of Adam's progeny."

In the magazine of February, 1896, page 128, while Bro. Carter was editor, in answer to a tirade of Eugene V. Debs against the old railway orders, he said: "Class organizations are the only labor organizations that will endure. The printers, the carpenters and the bricklayers are going up hill, while organizations based on the principles of the A. R. U. are going down hill." That is just what the B. of L. E. has thought of dual obligations, and our position does not come through any ill feeling toward any laboring class. That man who subscribes by oath to the law of one labor organization, subscribes to the cardinal principles of all, and will not be found doing that which is detrimental to any other class; but we may well be skep tical as to the value of an obligation to two or more masters.

With the dual organization of engineers and firemen in England, having an age nearly equal to our organization, they acknowledge that they work today for the same wage they did 40 years ago, with many added responsibilities. The Amalgamated Society of Railroad Servants has fared no better, and a writer in The Locomotive Journal, Leeds, England, of October, 1905, page 480, "after discussing conditions of 'we railroad slaves,' I may call ourselves," tells what the spinners have accomplished, and asks, "Why?" Simply because they are combined in their own par

ticular union to a man. The spinners don't quibble about the combination of all the workers in the mill; they simply join their own society and believe in their own strength. To all locomotive men I would say "go thou and do likewise."

We not only believe in every man belonging to that order his labor represents, but that he should take a single obligation to that, and that none but singly obligated defenders of that class should be allowed to represent them in a business way. That man who is obligated to more than one interest must be very astute to make both interests believe he is loyal, and they often go to extremes detrimental to both, in an effort to prove loyalty to the one he is put in position to defend. This truth can be verified by pointing to specific incidents where dual membership has not only created great cost in time on committee work, but at a cost of benefits received to both organizations. This accounts for the law in our statute books prescribing against any member of the B. of L. E. serving on a committee representing members of the B. of L. F. and vice versa.

Now, as to official circular No. 7, which our Brother Editor quotes, we unhesitatingly say that it emanates from a vindictive spirit, and that there is nothing fair or even commendable in it, and we very much doubt its approval by a majority of the members of the B. of L. F. In conformity with this circular, their legal department was called into service in New Mexico enjoining Div. 251 from expelling a member who joined the B. of L. F. in violation of his obligation to the B. of L. E. Brother Donnelly withdrew from the B. of L. F. years ago, and was insured in the B. of L. E., and had ample opportunity to take all of its insurance if he desired, but failed to do so until age limit prevented giving him more policies, so he makes application to the B. of L. F. and is accepted, and of course Div. 251 applied the law and the attorney, under instructions of the Grand Officers of the B. of L. F., enjoined the Division from expelling him; and in order to get standing in court declared in his petition that

the B. of L. F. was not a labor organ ization. The injunction was not granted, but the animus was clearly shown in the attempt to interfere and annoy the B. of L. E. They charge that the B. of L. E. are coercing their members and compell ing them to join the B. of L. E., and they call that the closed door. Let us see how much truth can attach to that statement. To say that any man is compelled to make application for membership in the B. of L. E. will appear ridiculous to any one with any knowledge of the facts, and if one had any serious objections to what is contained in the application, he would not be at all likely to sign it. The fact that he does sign the following blank application, which reads as follows:

Proposition for Membership

In The Broth rhood of Locomotive Engineers. To the Officers and Members of Division No.. I, the undersigned, being a Locomotive Engi neer.............. years' experience, running on the Ra lroad...... years of age, can read and write, residing in the .of ..do hereby offer myself as a candidate for the mysteries of the Brotherhood in your Division. I am not a member of any other labor organization, except.. and I agree, if admitted, that I will withdraw from all other labor organizations within ninety days from the date of my initiation into the B. of L. E. and will abide by and conform to all the provisions of the Constitution and By-Laws of the Order, and will take out and carry one or mote policies in the B. of L. E. Mutual Insurance Association. is evidence that he desires membership. He must have run an engine long enough to demonstrate that he is a qualified engi neer, and his character must meet the approbation of the members of the B. of L. E. before he can be elected to membership. The ninety days in which to withdraw was given so as not to jeopardize the insurance of the applicant if he should fail at his medical examination or election as a member of the B. of L. E.

We do not think that it will be denied that in signing this application he binds himself to abide by the conditions and law of the order to which he asks admission, and now we would ask, if an engineer applies, obligating himself as he does in signing the application, and signs it with the deliberate purpose of violating not only his word in signing the application,

but his solemn obligation taken when initiated, if the officers of the B. of L. F. can commend their own action in putting their legal department at work in an effort to defend such palpable fraud? Are they trying to secure justice for men who are void of honor, or are they doing this to be vindictive and resort to every means to disturb social relations, and widen the breach of their own making? The Editor says they want peace, but from their present attitude, it must, of course, come at any price to the B. of L. E. if there is peace. But we believe we are doing that which is for the best interest of both orders, that success is best conserved by each belonging to the organization his work represents, that in committee work and in all official places, engineers should represent engineers and firemen represent firemen; then the interests of each will be honestly looked after and good-will maintained. Dual membership is the cause of the ill-feeling on the part of the B. of L. F. and the only cure is to discontinue the dual obligation, an untenable position for any man to occupy.

Third Vice Grand Master Maier, under the heading of The Question of Jurisdiction, or A Victory for the Open Door, occupies twelve pages of the magazine, much of which is directed to the officials of the Northern Pacific road. Space will not permit a reproduction of his long article, so we will be content with comments on some of his most salient points. In the beginning he says:

I wish to refer to the Open Door policy of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen, which means the right of our organization to represent its engineer members in matters of grievances before railroad managements.

That various efforts have been made by our sister organization-the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers-to have the "closed door" policy put in force and effect is a well-known fact, several attempts having been made during very recent years to have railroad companies adopt such a rule.

The open and closed door suggested in the above would seem very far fetched. We had supposed the closed door meant no employment unless they were members of the labor organization demanding that the door be closed. We will cite one

of a number of cases of the door being closed by a B. of L. F. committee. In 1886 the firemen and engineers' committee on the Erie Road met the officials. Several of the firemen's committee were engineers and, as we have said before, were in that questionable position that they must be rabidly radical to prove their loyalty to those they represented. At all events, the firemen's committee demanded that the doors be closed against the hiring of engineers and that all men be promoted, they would not recede from it, and the doors were closed and remained closed. This policy was followed to such an extent that the Atlanta convention appointed a committee to meet the delegates at the firemen's convention in Cincinnati and see if some arrangements could not be reached whereby engineers out of work could find an opening, but the majority were opposed to making any concessions. This is what we understand as closing the door.

The members of the B. of L. E. are not attempting to deny any man place, but we believe we are absolutely consistent, so long as the influence of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers secured the contracts under which engineers serve, in demanding that it be their province to see that the contract is lived up to, and in doing this we are not encroaching upon the province of firemen, and when we agree to look after the grievance of every engineer, when asked, and whether a member of the B. of L. E. or not, it cannot have much of the element of the closed door in it, and cannot possibly harm members of the B. of L. F. who are still pursuing the duties of locomotive firemen.

Brother Maier asks:

Is it because the engineers are so anxious to take up our grievances, or that they are particularly interested in the future welfare of ourselves or our families that they are making this demand? . . . We cannot believe so. The indications are that the idea emanated from a few who were actuated by selfish motives, possibly not realizing the enormity of its injustice or the effect that would follow.

To his first proposition, the B. of L. E. in demanding that engineers look after

the welfare of engineers are indirectly doing that which is for the welfare of locomotive firemen, for they are the natural heirs to all the good we can create. As to his second proposition, we would ask Brother Maier to turn the searchlight upon himself and see if he does not find personal aspirations, as his own motive rather than the best interest of Locomotive Firemen he officially represents.

Again he says:

cases

We have been informed of numerous throughout the country where they have served notice on engineers who were members of both organizations to withdraw from the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen, under pena'ty of expulsion from their order. Is this in accordance with American principles and American ideas of liberty?

Brother Maier is not fair either to the engineers or firemen in making such ambiguous half statements. He leaves out the cause and, of course, with the purpose to deceive. The expulsions

alluded to are for violation of a solemn obligation which was made in making application and in obligating himself when initiated. Even in Brother Maier's extremity to find excuse for his vindictive attitude, will he maintain that he is representing the general sentiment of the members of the B. of L. F. in defending men with so little honor that their obligation is a lie, and will he maintain that the members of the B. of L. F. desire their legal department to be put at work and their money spent to compel the B. of L. E. to accord membership to such violators of their word of honor? We cannot believe he represents the sentiments of the B. of L. F., whose members are as honorable as any other class of men and who would not tolerate dishonor in their own ranks. No man is compelled to join the B. of L. E.; he always applies of his own free will and obligates imself both in his application and obligation when initiated, and the courts su tain the laws governing voluntary a sociations, and we will continue to put in force the law governing the Brotherhood whenever there is infraction or violation of obligation, and if our members comply strictly with our law in enforcing it, we need not

be afraid of the courts, whoever is behind the prosecution.

Wrong coloring has been given to controversy over jurisdiction in several places, and that it may be better understood, we append the following relative to the N. Y., N. H. & H. and Great Northern railway.

THE NEW YORK, NEW HAVEN & HARTFORD RAILROAD COMPANY.

NEW HAVEN, CONN., March 20, 1905. "Supplementing circular of February 13 (signed by the First Vice President, approved by the President), regarding the company's position in the matter of the controversy between the General Committee of Adjustment of the engineers and the General Committee of Adjustment of the firemen, I am glad to advise that a settlement satisfactory to both parties has been arrived at.

"For the information of the public and the employees in the train service of the company, the following statement is made:

"On February 14, Mr. Shea, Second Vice Grand Master of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen, and the Firemen's General Committee, met a committee of five of the directors of this company and went over the points at issue with that committee.

"The committee of directors, after earnest consideration of the matter, decided as follows:

"Mr. imothy Shea, Second Vice Grand Master, Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen :

"Dear Sir: Agreeable to promise made by the special committee of the board of directors at the hearing with the Committee of Adju: tment of Locomotive Firemen, held at Grand Central Station, New York, cn Tuesday, February 14, 1905, the committee advises you of its conclu ien as follows:

"The question at issue is the following: "That in the case of engineers who have been disciplined and are members of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen, upon taking an appeal from the decision of the officers applying the discipline to a higher officer, that a com

mittee of engineers, members of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen, should tale up his case with the management instead of the Engineers' Adjustment Committee.

"The Committee have carefully considered the statements made at the hearing, having examined the records of the company in regard to the question at issue, and having consulted with the officers of the company concerning the same, has ached the following conclusions, namely:

"That any aggrieved engineer is guaranteed an opportunity to be represented by an advocate before the officers of the company, by the provisions contained in Article I. of the schedule made with the locomotive engineers in our employ, in effect January 1st, 1904, in which article it is provided that 'All engineers will be given a fair chance to defend themselves against charges in holding investigations. All engineers who are interested will be allowed to choose a disinterested engineer to represent or accompany them on boards of investigation, if they so desire, when an appeal is made after the first investigation.'

"The committee is 'n entire accord with the position taken and decision rendered in this matter by the President and executive officials charged with the operation and management of the company's railroad, namely, that the claim of your committee cannot be conceded and believe that this decision if for the best interests of the company.

"The decision of the President and executive officers, as already communicated to you by them, is therefore sustained.

their conferences on the subject, requested the engineers tɔ holla joint conference which was granted by the engineers, and as a result of this conference a joint communication was finally submitted to the company proposing that the phrase in Article I. of the company's agreement with its engineers, which now reads:

"All engineers who are interested will be allowed to choose some disinterested engineer to represent or accompany them'be changed to read:

"All engineers who are interested will be allowed to choose one or two disinterested engineers to accompany and speak for them on boards of investigation, if they so desire, when an appeal is made after the first investigation.' And with an addition to Article I., to read as follows:

"It is further agreed that in event engineers selected as per Article I. fail to adjust grievance, the matter can be taken up and disposed of in accordance with the practice now in vogue on system, the case to be disposed of under the supervision of the engineers selected.'

"To this the company assented carrying out the position that it had assumed from the first; that it was willing to make such a change in Article I., provided the engineers would give their assent, but not otherwise.

"The company's assent was given upon the following conditions:

"1. That for the sake of clearness the phrase in Article I. at present reading 'on boards of investigation' be changed to read 'before boards of investigation' and that the words in the employ of the company' be inserted after the words 'disinterested engineer.'

"With these changes Article I. will read: