It's "the only way."

I wish he would tell us how. Brother Edward Funk of Division 170 wants a law to compel Secretaries to due diligence in correspondence, and seems to think it analagous to the bond for securing the safety of the funds. Now, the bond is taken so that if the Secretary violates his obligation by stealing the Division's money, it will suffer no pecuniary loss. It's a matter of insurance. Brother Funk, your comparison is unfortunate. In another part of your letter you refer to the grand success of your Division's annual ball. There you are on the key. There you show what can be done with the means at hand if the members will. The same sort of spirit, the sort of interested effort that made that undertaking a success-upon which I congratulate you-is the sort of spirit that will save the Order from its ills and make it greater. No, we do not need biennial sessions to enact more laws. What we do need is greater interest in the subordinate Divisions and in the members thereof for the better application and carrying out of the principles of the Order. It is this work that confronts us, and it can not be done by the Grand Division. There is a letter in the February number of THE CONDUCTOR that contains much that is admirable. It is signed "1884". But I can not agree with the following reference to the B. R. T.: "You must drop the other or you can have no place among us,"

This member claims that by making it unlawful for us to retain members who will not drop the B. R. T. we shall, to use his language, "avoid many complications that we now run up against." I would like to ask, What serious complications have we ever run up against, in this regard, that could not have been avoided by a proper adherence to and a diligent application of the present laws and principles of the Order? Shall we not do better by leaving ourselves room within which to expand in the application of our principles than by the enactment of laws that tie us up, hamper and handicap us until we become hidebound, so to speak? Is the Order of Railway Conductors a thing of brains and conscience, or is it a machine that must be fitted together with arbitrary laws and ironclad rules? Is it a child or a weakling that can not protect itself and take care of every one within its gates, or is it an adult-a full grown man? Laws we must have, but not too many. Let us have none that we can do better without. After ascertaining that a candidate for admission to our Order is eligible under Section 17 of the Statutes, we expose him to five ordeals; one under Section 18, two under Section 21, one under Section 22, and one under Section 27. If he can run this gauntlet, and is what his three sponsors promised for him, we want him, both for his moral and financial support. Physically, we may need him too. If he disappoints us in any way, are we not big enough and strong enough to protect ourselves against him or against any number of him that we are likely to get? Let us suppose that we have such a law. Now, I can conceive of a very young man joining the B. R. T. when he is a brakeman. He proves himself an excellent member. In time he becomes a conductor. He wants to join the O. R. C. Not for what harm he can do to it, not for what good it can do to him. He is not out for pecuniary benefit. With him it is a question of what good he can do in the Order. The good he has done in the

B. R. T. has made him love that organization, and he feels that he has light enough so that, notwithstanding his new affiliations with the O. R. C., he can still let some of it shine on the B. R. T. Yes, and let it shine there to the mutual benefit of both organizations. We want that man, but we can't have him. Everything in reason and justice to ourselves and to him, everything in common sense, cries out to us to take him. But no; we tied ourselves up with a law and we must take the law as we find it and apply it to all alike. We must say to him in the language of Brother "1884, "When you become an O. R. C. man you must drop the other or you can have no place among us." We can't do such things without giving the B. R. T. and its members a slap in the face. I think it is better to leave the laws as they are, so that we may exercise our common sense and judgment in choosing the good men and in inducing them to come to us rather than blocking their way and our own. The B. R. T. men are sufficiently debarred in Section 2, Statutes. We can, under present laws, always reject any man we don't want, be he B. R. T. or what not. Don't tie us up or make the price (requirements) so high that we can't have the good ones when they offer. I offer no excuse for any man refusing to leave the B. R. T. when he joins the O. R. C. I think it a question which can be safely left to him to decide for himself. If, from a moral and financial point of view, he feels that he can preserve membership in both organizations, I do not feel that it is a matter that we need seriously concern ourselves about. I think it will take care of itself. I think the wise provisions of Section 2, Statutes, are sufficient.

In another part of "1884's" letter he says: "We need to instill a little charity into our frame. "God will surely bless him for that thought. I wish every member of the Order was as fully in accord with "1884" as I am on this proposition. But I want to see the money raised not by law, not by assessment. Can't we do it voluntarily? After all that has been said and written on this subject in the last few years, is there not enough charity and benevolence in our souls to accomplish the great things we can achieve in this direction-the things we can do with little self-denial-the things we can do without even feeling that we have deprived ourselves? If I should say to you, "I will erect a box in my house and into it I will put one cent every day for the benefit of my Brother who is in need," you would perhaps smile at the insignificance of the sum; but in this way we could raise, in one year, the sum of nearly one hundred and thirty thousand dollars. There is something sordid and unworthy in the thought of having to compel by law something which we ought to be glad to do spontaneously; for, truly, "it is better to give than to receive." "Let your light so shine before men that they may see your good works and glorify your Father which is in heaven."

I marvel when I think what a great power the Order has shown itself to be and what lustre it can add to its greatness by concerted action in the fus ture. As I have claimed before, we have lawenough to safely conduct the affairs of the Order. We do not need frequent sessions of the Grand Division. We have well arranged our business affairs, we have put our house in order. Let us now

turn our attention to higher things. Let us become, in the world of railway labor, the greatest power for the greatest good.

In regard to attendance: We can't compel it by law. I think we have seen that. We can have it if we can make our meetings interesting enough to draw members in. This has been said before.

But how? I will propose. Let every member try to draw a resolution, and when he comes to the Division, offer it under the last order of business. For instance: "Resolved, that the O. R. C. ought not to consider petitions for membership by members of the B. of R. T. unless they agree to withdraw from that organization." This ought to pro

duce a hot, interesting, and instructive debate. At the close of each meeting, let the resolutions to be presented at the next meeting be announced, and let the members present advertise it among those they meet. When the debate is on in the Division, let those who are most skilled in debate and who usually do most of the talking, be very careful not to take too much time. Try to get out the thought of those who are good thinkers, but who are diffident and lack confidence to attempt anything like a speech. We don't care how homely their language is. What we want is more light. There is a great deal of talent in the Order. It only needs cultivating. Some of our members will be surprised to see how soon they will gain confidence if they will only become interested and allow themselves to be heard. My idea, in brief, is to make the Division room a school of debate and a field for education in matters of peculiar and particular interest to railway conductors. As the interest grows, so will attendance increase. Please give us your ideas on this proposition, report progress, and announce through THE CONDUCTOR, the subjects discussed in your Divisions, that they may be taken up elsewhere. Of course, this will be easier for the larger Divisions than for those who have difficulty in securing a quorum. But let us all do what we can with the means at hand. When practicable, organize parties and meet with neighboring Divisions for purposes of debate. Let the big Divisions go to the smaller ones and help in enlivening them.

I have just received the March number of THE CONDUCTOR. There is an excellent letter from Brother Thomas of Topeka. I need not say that I like his idea of quadrennial sessions of the Grand Division. His proposition for a permanent home, etc., for the Grand Division is excellent and feasible. I hope his letter will be widely read and deeply considered. There is so much in the March number about refusing to receive into the Order the B. R. T. man that I must revert for a line or two to the subject. Jay Dee says: "A very small percentage of the B. R. T. join the O. R. C." This is to be regretted, and yet you propose to make a law that will cut that down and make it still less. He speaks of "each organization legislating for the same class of men," and refers to the railway managements that "permit such legislation," etc. I wonder if he is talking about cooperation between the O. R. C. and the B. R. T. in the adjustment of agreements (schedules) between those organizations and railway companies. If so, I want to say that this is an entirely different question and must be considered separately if we would avoid confusion.

He wants to know, "What about the conductor who is a member of the B. R. T.?" when trouble comes to him through the aggressiveness of that institution, etc. I answer: The O. R. C. has nothing whatever to do with that. The conductor who retains membership in the B. R. T. after joining the O. R. C. must answer the questions put by Jay Dee, for himself. He makes his bed and must lie in it. I believe he will make it so that he can lie in it, if given a fair chance. I believe that when he has joined the O. R. C. he will find satisfaction, full, adequate, and complete, and will naturally, properly, and in his own good time answer the promptings of his own good heart and sound judgment and withdraw. But we must take him in and give him more light first, and if he is slow to withdraw, don't worry about what's going to happen to him if he don't. Let him do his own worrying. It is not to be disputed that "the best place for the railway conductor is in the O. R. C." If you find a good one in the B. R. T., take him, if you can get him, and give him a chance to shed his barnacles.

In concluding an article that is, perhaps, too long, I wish to congratulate Brother Welch on his views anent the proposed court for the regulation of railroad rates. He is, as may always be expected, level-headed and correct. No such commission can comprehend enough of the varied and varying exigencies of the carrying trade to enable it to make equitable adjustments even in a majority of cases. NORMAN WATKINS.

Milwaukee, Wis.

ར

Editor Railway Conductor:

1 enclose you an amendment to the Benefit Department laws and an amendment to Statutes, and ask you to publish in THE CONDUCTOR along with this letter.

In almost every CONDUCTOR appear letters from members of the Order all over the land about helping the old conductor. Up to the present time, no way has been suggested to help him. Brother Chamberlin has submitted the following: "Amend Article 27 of the Reserve Fund as fol

lows:

"Strike out all after word 'Laws' on lines 22, 23, 24, 25, and up to the words 'except that' on line 26, page 87.

"Add the following after the word 'herein' on line 56, page 88: that after the Reserve Fund shall have reached the le zal limit, $300,000, all additional sums to the Reserve Fund above said limit of $300,000 shall be used by the custodians of the fund as follows: To pay off the policies of all conductors, members of the Mutual Benefit Department, who have reached the age of 65 years. Said policies to be paid as fast as the surplus to the fund may accrue, and in the order in which they were issued.

"After said policies shall have been paid the holder thereof shall be known as a non-beneficiary of the Benefit Department and the Relief Fund.

"Should there, however, be a draft made on the Reserve Fund, bringing it below the limit of $300,000. no policies shall be paid until the Reserve Fund shall have again reached the limit of $300,000, etc." This, to my way of thinking, is a step towards helping the old conductor. While this may not

meet the approval of all, I feel, however, that a large number will agree that it is one of the best ways to help the ones that so many seem to be worried about. The amendment provides for the funds by keeping up the assessment of $1.00 on July 1 of each year, on all members, old or young; and surely one dollar a year will not be a hardship on the members of this noble Order to help the old man when no railroad on earth wants him. Amendment to Section 81 of the Statutes: "RELIEF FUND. Add after the word 'thereof' on line 24, page 70: Provided, however, that any member of the Benefit Department who has re-ceived full payment on his policies in the Benefit Department shall not receive benefits from the Relief Fund and shall not be assessed for same."

This amendment provides that a member receiving his insurance fully paid will not receive any further aid from the Relief Fund.

Now, Brothers, I ask you all to carefully read these amendments and take your Statutes and see just what they will mean if adopted. Some will say it can not be done; others, that it will break the Department. No. The money to do this good work does not come from the Benefit Department, but from the members of the Benefit Department through this one dollar assessment on July 1 of each year. The law now provides that after a member has paid ten assessments he shall not be, called on to pay any more unless something extraordinary happens to draw on the Reserve Fund. Should this happen, the new amendment provides also that no policy shall be paid until this danger is again overcome.

I see by the last CONDUCTOR that Brother C. D. Baker has a plan to take from the beneficiaries a -certain per cent of the face value of the policy. I

wish someone would inform me how Brother Baker proposes to take away from any old member of the Benefit Department 10 to 40% of a certain policy that every member has bought and paid for and on which he has obligated himself to carry and pay for as long as he is a member of the Order. the other hand, the Order has agreed to pay to a member's beneficiary the face value of that policy. My idea is that it can not be done. It's an agreement between the member and the Order of Rail

On

way Conductors. This Baker law can be applied to the new members and the ones that allow themselves to become suspended. In that case, who will join the O. R. C. with a scaling 10 to 40% policy, when they can remain in the other order they belong to and get face value for amount of policy. I don't agree with Brother Baker. I believe it's time to shake hands with the Devil when you meet him. Up to now he has not come to light. I hope all Delegates to the Grand Division will look carefully at these amendments and select the one that will do the most good to the greatest number.

In last month's CONDUCTOR a member from Pittsburg writes that they have a member that has not missed a meeting of his Division in four years, and wants a record to beat it. Division 54 has a member that has been an officer of the Division for 10 years and in that time has missed four meetings. The Secretary of Division 54, on July 1 next will have held that office fifteen years, and during that time missed seven meetings. Four of them

Editor Railway Conductor;

The March CONDUCTOR has made its appearance and full of good logic, many reforms were touched upon and there are still others that should be taken up and discussed at this time.

Let us take up the question of ex-members retaining their membership in the M. B. D., an evil that has worked hardships on the membership for years, and which is costing us upwards of $40,000 a year for a class at least 90% of which never intend to remain in the Order only joining to get a nice cheap insurance and then lapse or withdraw. Some had a grievance to adjust, and as soon as this was done and they were placed on passenger runs they had no further use for the Order. It is an imposition on the Order and a detriment to the welfare of our afflicted Brothers who are totally disabled, but, almost every Grand Division has sanctioned it. Has it not been because of selfish motives of the delegates? Had this evil been remedied at the start the money paid out to these ex-members all these years would go a long way toward paying disabled Brothers, $50 a month instead of $25, as suggested by Brother C. W. Haynes.

Brother Clark has always acted wisely and his recommendations to the Grand Division were most generally concurred in. The only time that he was ever turned down was when he advocated reforms to regulate this ex-membership, and the fact has long been established that this is necessary. He has always acted conscienciously on all matters of reform and the membership should recognize that the Order at large never did approve of this ex-membership in the M. B. D. But it would seem that the delegates who legislated this unfortunate idea into law misunderstood the interests of their constituency. The law as it now is gives away more than $40,000 a year to a class that has no interest in the Order except to get cheap and safe insurance.

The Joint Membership is another question that should be taken up. For years I have advocated a change in this law, and it was thoroughly discussed at Pittsburg. The sentiment against it was very strong but when the debating was at its height a Brother who spoke in the negative in such glowing terms of the work done in the field he had just left. (where there was trouble, which was being jointly adjusted by the B. R. T. and the O. R. C., and the perfect harmony that existed and the bad feeling it would create among the B. R. T. and the good schedules that were secured jointly between these two orders that such a change would mar our future progress, etc.,) would such a change in any way bar the B. R. T. in continuing to adjust grievances jointly? Are they not doing it every day in the section where there is no joint membership? Would they refrain from soliciting Our co-operation in adjusting

grievances? I think not. And so the measure was lost, as it was at St. Paul, by the pleading of one member on the ground of sympathy, not the justice of such a law.

Jay Dee, I concur in all you say in the March CONDUCTOR and sooner or later our Joint Membership will be confronted with the same perplexed question as was the B. L. F. and B. L. E. experience on the N. Y., N. H. & H. Had the B. L. F. established the same policy as the B. L. E. did they would have experienced no difficulty.

Brothers did you ever stop to think that it is possible for a Division to meet O. R. C. in the forenoon and the same body meet B. R. T. in the evening, and that your C. C. could at the same time be a master in the B. R. T.? Could he act judiciously where the obligations conflict and where the policy in each was the opposite? To fully realize the evils of this inconsistent membership it would only be necessary to sit in a Division of over 150 members in which 35% of the members were doubleheaders. Then you could see the enormities practiced and the friction, because of the conflicting obligations and policies.

That this policy should be regulated to the rear seems to me obvious. On the very face of our laws we admit that we discriminate against the doubleheaders from the fact that they cannot enjoy all the privileges of the Order. This for other substantial reasons, but it has never remedied all the evils and they will keep on growing until such a time, as we take a decided stand and insist that those who are chosen to represent us in the Grand Division enact laws for the eilmination of this evil.

No great battle was ever won without some loss or law enacted that did not pinch somebody, so let us resolve that our laws shall be by the Order, for the Order, and for the greatest benefit to the majority. EDWARD FUNK.

Philadelphia, Pa.

༦

Editor Railway Conductor:

The various changes in the laws advocated in the March issue should be noted by every member and, if possible, he should give the delegate from his Division the benefit of any interest he may have in these changes.

I see Brother Baker has a plan for the insurance department and while I believe it is in a large degree just and right, still I think that at the present time it would be inexpedient for us to adopt the plan. However, as we have agreed to pay our members in round numbers $56,900,000 insurance and we have only a reserve fund of $286,000, it is evident that we have only $5 in reserve to pay each member $1000 insurance. This being the case something should be done to raise the reserve to a more reasonable figure in order to insure the safety of the Mutual Benefit Department when the rapidly increasing number of claims are to be met in the near future. So I would favor the passage of a law, "that each certificate paid by reason of death or disability shall have deducted from it, 74% of its face value less the amount paid into the reserve fund on account of said certificate, this deduction also to be paid into the reserve fund by the Grand

Secretary and Treasurer." In this way we could increase our reserve fund at the rate of $100,000 a year rather than at the rate of $55,000 a year as we have under the present law. Also I believe that we should have an investment committee to take charge of our funds, that shall have authority to invest them in industrial enterprises that will give a larger return than we now get by the simple interest we receive from banks and bonds. I believe also that we should amend our law relative to strike pay so as to be more generous with men who lose their jobs through loyalty to the Order in time of trouble.

It is well to note that all this agitation for rate regulation and other concessions from the monoplies of the country is but bringing more sharply into the public mind the only real remedy: public ownership. It is only natural, too, to take the position that government regulation is but one step toward public ownership, and Pres. Tuttle of the Boston & Maine in a recent speech indicated the fear of the corporations in regard to the awakening of the people on the subject.

Railroad business is very fair around Boston and as a general thing all the crews on the various roads find enough to do, some of the general committees are at work and in some instances have been more or less successful in gaining concessions. The Boston and Albany committee secured increase in pay for through passenger men and local freight conductors and as a general thing in this vicinity practically every member of the Order has been benefited greatly by the Order, through its organization and committee work, and it is up to every member to get every eligible conductor to join as soon as possible. Division 122 gave a very successful dance February 22, which reflected great credit on the committee in charge.

Divisions 122, 157, and 413 recently held a union meeting that no doubt resulted in an increased interest in our Order and its work. Hurrah for Portland! W. J. COYNE. Boston, Mass.

༦

Editor Railway Conductor:

Some of the Brothers are advocating a plan to curtail the expense of the Grand Division. This is no doubt a move in the right direction and can be easily accomplished by dividing our territory into districts, allowing each delegate to represent five hundred members of the Order. There are in Harrisburg two Divisions of the O. R. C. and another on our line at Columbia, twenty

eight miles east of Harrisburg. There is no reason why one man could not represent these three Divisions as well as he could one. It isn't economy to send two men to do one man's work. the permanent delegates, they are more than thirtyfive years of age and should be retired.

As for

The handling of the membership of the Grand Division in a legislative body is surely a Herculean task under the present conditions; more and better work can be accomplished with one hundred delegates than with five hundred; because if delegates were chosen from three or more Divisions, provided the combined membership does not exceed five hundred, it would_natur