The Rise of Auburn
In the latter half of the 1890s the Northern Pacific was
handling a burgeoning traffic load out of Washington’s Queen City of Seattle.
At that time freight out of Seattle was sent to Meeker, just north of Puyallup,
where it proceeded east over was later known as the Buckley Line. This route,
began in the 1870s as a branch from Tacoma to the coal fields of eastern Pierce
County, had been adopted as the western approach to Stampede Pass in the 1880s.
It had several objectionable features, not the least of which was an east bound
helper district out of South Prairie, but the rails were in place and thus
could hasten the completion of the Stampede Pass route.
In the
1880s the Northern Pacific Engineer-in-Chief General Adna Anderson had studied
a more expedient route from Palmer to present-day Auburn, but time did not
allow for its construction. Finally, at the turn-of-the-century the Northern
Pacific undertook the construction of the Palmer Cut-Off, a line which would
shorten its distance to Seattle and replace the oatmeal lumpy grade of the
Buckley Line with a straight one percent climb. With the opening of the Palmer
Cut-Off between East Auburn and Kanaskat in 1900, Auburn became the western hub
of Stampede Pass.
The
Palmer Cut-Off turned Auburn into the quintessential railroad town. The city
went from a sleepy agricultural berg to one of the major marshalling yards of
western Washington. After Auburn Yard’s completion in 1913, Auburn was the
jump-off point for the majority of the Northern Pacific’s east bound freight,
the primary base for large helper power, and home to numerous local freights
running between Seattle, Tacoma, Everett, and British Columbia.
Increasing
traffic through Auburn placed a great strain on the Northern Pacific’s road
crews. Engineers and firemen saw endless service, spending up to 16 hours on
duty in rugged conditions. Having to spend so much time away from loved ones,
it should not be surprising that engine crews worked to move their union lodges
from Seattle to the town they called home. In at least one case, that of the
Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen, this became an act of
sacrifice and defiance.
Puget Sound Lodge 407
In 1919 the Northern Pacific had fifteen Locomotive Firemen
and Enginemen lodges across its system. Union firemen on what was then the
Seattle Division were members of Puget Sound Lodge 407, headquartered in
Seattle. Puget Sound Lodge members were not only from the Northern Pacific, but
also the Great Northern, Oregon-Washington Railroad and Navigation Company (a
subsidiary of the Union Pacific), the Milwaukee Road, and the dimunitive
Pacific Coast.
Lodge
meetings were extremely difficult to attend for men on-call in isolated
mountain hamlets. America’s love affair with the automobile was still in its
infancy in 1919, and good roads between Seattle and Auburn were hard to come
by. The roads which did exist were more often than not shared with traffic of
the horse-and-wagon variety. For men in helper service at Lester, roads were
non-existent. The obvious solution to the men was to move their lodge meetings
to Auburn. As one of the busiest terminals in the area, and home to many
members of the Puget Sound Lodge, a relocation would make life, and attending
meetings, much easier, and end what must have seemed, at times, as the great
American rallying cry, “taxation without representation.” The idea of
relocating the lodge was probably proposed – and rejected – by the majority of
members of the Puget Sound Lodge, though no record remains to attest to this.
However, time would soon show that Northern Pacific employees in Auburn were
determined to create a lodge of their own.
Secretary for the Petitioners
On June 18, 1919, members of the Puget Sound Lodge working
out of Auburn came together to plan a course of action. They met at 8:00 P.M.,
electing Earl Cebell to chair the meeting and Oral E. Greer as secretary. Five
men addressed the gathering, and following this, a motion was made to discuss
the creation of a new lodge at Auburn. Ira Farmer and Jack Denise proposed a
petition to ascertain general support for the move, and also to write the
Brotherhood’s Grand Lodge in Cleveland, Ohio, about the transfer of membership.
There was a recess while three men worked on the petition. When finished it was
quickly approved as “proper as read.”
Next,
the men worked to find a way to gain support, in writing, from their fellow
firemen. “Motion made by Charles A. Cunningham and seconded by A. M. Barrett to
send a man up on the North End to get signatures on petition. Carried. Moved by
Denise and seconded by Farmer that this party be paid $8 per day for this trip.
Carried. Motion made and seconded that Denise present the petition to the North
End men. Carried.” A petition was also to be sent to the Seattle roundhouse.
Finally,
the supporters of the infant lodge assessed each new member twenty-five cents
to cover current expenses. With an eight-dollar-a-day trip to the North End
about to begin, and a hall rental fee of $1.50, the lodge had begun operating
in the red in less than two hours.
Two days
after the meeting in Auburn, Oral Greer sent a note to Puget Sound Lodge
Chairman R. W. Moxley, informing him of the situation. “The question of having
all NP members belonging to Puget Sound Lodge 407 transferred to this lodge,
providing we can get the jurisdiction changed, came up and I was instructed to
write Mr. Hawley [General Secretary of the Brotherhood] regarding this. He will
probably call upon you and we wish you to give him all information necessary in
regards to changing jurisdiction in order to prevent having two lodges and
committees pulling against each other.”
That day
Greer also wrote a detailed letter to Hawley to lay out the group’s complaints.
“The
reason for organizing a lodge at this point is due to the fact that a large
majority of the members of this division work out of Auburn or are under the
jurisdiction of the Auburn roundhouse, and all, with the exception of the men
on the two locals and switch engines, are subject to calls at any time, which
makes it very inconvenient to go to Seattle to the lodge meeting, while the men
that are working in Seattle are on regular jobs and can come to Auburn without missing
anything.
“The
Auburn extra list has to protect all runs in Seattle and on the North End, as
well as runs out of Auburn, and what men are now working in Seattle on switch
engines and passenger runs, at sometime or another, have to work out of Auburn
account increase or decrease business.
“There
are about twenty-five men east of Auburn on regular jobs that cannot go to
Seattle to lodge without losing a day, that is, leave their home point in the
morning, while if the lodge was here the majority could come to Auburn on 333
getting here at 9 P.M. and return, leaving here at 12:50 A.M. getting back
before the next morning.”
Greer
tried to point out the pitfall best avoided by everyone involved.
“At the
meeting we came to the understanding that we did not want to get tangled up as
the engineers have on this division by having two lodges and two committees . .
. [Puget Sound Lodge 407] at present time has O&W, Pacific Coast and NP
men, so if the NP men withdraw from it . . . we could handle our own business
with our own men.”
He
closed with a statement showing the men’s determination.
“We are
confident that we can get not less than two-thirds of the members of the
firemen that are on this division but are holding the petitions back until such
time as we can year from you . . . we do not want to start something that we
cannot finish.”
Acting
President Timothy Shea sent the Brotherhood’s official response on June 14.
Shea’s answer would prove the be the beginning of months of delay. “Just as
soon as I hear from [Lodge 407] I will conduct further correspondence with
you.”
Paper Trails
A month later typewriters in Auburn, Seattle, and Cleveland
were banging away. Puget Sound Lodge Recording Secretary I. S. Good wrote
Timothy Shea on July 7, stating his objections. Four paragraphs complaining
about the difficulties of attending lodge meetings were closed with a note that
unwittingly attested to the Auburn men’s case. “Of course some of the members
have automobiles, others have not, and some would have to go on the interurban
and it costs 59 cents one way and he will have to be a pretty good lodge member
to pay his fare all the time.”
Shea
took Good’s complains and his added them to his own objectives, organizing them
into a joint letter to the men. He stated, “I was advised under date of July
2nd by Brother [T. P.] Gorman [Chairman of the General Grievance Committee on
the Northern Pacific] that he would undertake an investigation of the situation
. . . . It shall not be my purpose to arrive at any definite conclusions
regarding the organization of a new lodge at Auburn until after Brother Gorman
shall have made definite reply.” Shea’s comments, along with Good’s complaints,
were read at the regular meeting of Lodge 407 on June 28. The reading ended any
hopes of maintaining the status quo.
Oral
Greer wrote Shea and Gorman describing what had taken place.
“The
outcome was that a vote be taken to find out how the men stood on this matter.
The first motion was that the jurisdiction of the grievance committee be changed
to the new lodge when same was organized at Auburn. The chair would not let
this come to a vote for the reason that there were more men present that were
for the change than there were against it.
“I got
the floor and told them that what was wanted was to find out the sentiment of
the members present at the meeting and the sentiment were for the change but we
could not get that through, but to keep down trouble the first motion was
finally withdrawn and upon the request a motion was made that a referendum vote
be taken of all accessible members on the Seattle and Puget Sound divisions
that the jurisdiction of the grievance committee be granted to a new lodge at
Auburn, Wash., when same was organized. That vote has been taken and the
results of this vote will be known next Sunday when they are counted.”
Being
blocked through parliamentary procedure was one thing, but the next move of the
Seattle interests was another. “We were under the impression that the matter
would rest until this vote was taken,” Greer continued, “Now I get your letter
and by that I see that the lodge at another meeting have wrote you that 407 is
not in favor of this move. I myself though helping to take the vote, will say
that this letter does not express the sentiments of the members of 407 and that
the few that were there are going out of their place in writing you such a
letter. If a small minority are going to rule the B of LF and E then it is time
we do something. I also note that in the letter that he in giving you time of these
trains has misstated the time of them showing that they have not tried to use
some of them.”
“We
members here at Auburn are trying to be on the square with this move. I will
read a copy of this letter at lodge at the next meeting so they will know what
I have done.”
The feud
between Seattle and Auburn interests had begun in earnest.
After
the contentious meeting the Auburn men worked at organizing support for a new
lodge. In late July Oral Greer wrote Shea and Gorman of their efforts,
following with the results of the vote on July 23. It was a damning note.
“First, there were 197 names on the roll, 12 were laying off, 24 could not be
found without a greater expense than we deemed necessary, 29 voted against
this, 2 were not signed, one was thrown out on account of not being filled out.
[One hundred and twenty-nine] voted in favor.”
Shea
replied on July 30. T. P. Gorman had yet to file a report on the matter,
“Therefore, it will not be my purpose to arrive at any definite conclusion
until statement is received . . .” It was becoming a well-known refrain.
To his
credit, however, Shea did not stop there. He responded in full to Greer’s
charges regarding the disastrous June 28 meeting. “It was presumed the Brother
Good’s letter [complaining on the difficulties of Seattle residents to attend
meetings in Auburn] communicated information developed at a meeting of Lodge
407, as no intelligent expression of opinion of the membership of the lodge
could be made without some discussion of the question at regular meetings of
the lodge.” He continued, “If, as indicated in Brother Greer’s letters, action
was deferred on account of the ‘Auburn membership having packed the meetings,’
then it would have been proper to have advised those at the meeting that the
question of organizing a new loge at Auburn would be given consideration at a
future meeting of lodge, and requisition all members interested to be in
attendance, thereby securing an attendance of a representative portion of the
members of the lodge to determine the question.” Shea closed by stating, “As it
is, I understand Brother Good’s letter is simply an expression of his personal
opinion, and is not an expression of the opinion of the membership of Lodge
407.” It could only be read as a rebuke of the Seattle contingent’s actions.
Hopefully, it worked to restore Shea’s and the Brotherhood’s credibility with
the Auburn men.
Meeting Time
With a majority of the lodge’s membership behind them, the
rank-and-file insurgents took matters into their own hands. Bolstered by the
outcome of the vote, and Shea’s rebuke of I. S. Good, the upstart firemen began
meeting in Auburn as a lodge.
Auburn’s
Mystic Hall hosted their first meeting on August 10. The show began at 12:30
P.M., with Jack Denise sworn in as chairman and Charles Cunningham as Acting
Secretary (Oral Greer had departed for pressing business). Early in August the
men had been officially canvassed and 104 members of the Puget Sound Lodge, a
majority, had signed the petition for a new lodge. A representative from the
Brotherhood’s headquarters had also come to investigate the matter. His
findings or recommendations, however, were not made known at the meeting. What
was set forth, instead, were the membership’s goals, and calls for action.
“Motion
is made by Brother A. M. Barrett and seconded by Brother Joe Phillips that a
letter be written by acting secretary to Timothy Shea, explaining to him that
we do not consider a further investigation necessary as a referendum vote has
been taken according to the constitution and a large majority are in favor of a
lodge being organized at Auburn and that the petition for the request for a
charter will follow in a few days. Carried.” Cunningham added a hand-written
note to the record. “Please try and get this off on [No.] 4 in the [morning] or
as soon as possible as requested by members present.”
With
headquarters informed of their intent, and hopefully out of their way, the men
moved on to the next step, gaining a charter for the lodge.
“Motion
made by Brother [Earl] Cebell and seconded by Brother Phillips that offer made
by Brother Anderson to loan $50.00 for charter for lodge at Auburn be excepted
[sic] and to be paid back to him by assessing each member of said lodge after
being organized with lawful rate of interest. Carried. Motion made by Brother
Cebell and seconded by Brother Phillips that Brother [Lester] Dyer be sent
north with petition to get members to sign for a charter for a lodge at Auburn.
Motion passed.”
Like the
earlier drive for signatures on the petition for the new lodge, now there was a
push for signatures on the new lodge’s charter. Appointed to handle the
signature gathering were Jack Denise for Lester, Easton, Cle Elum and
Ellensburg; Joe Phillips for Auburn; Ross Despain for Seattle, and Dyer for communities
on the North End. Dyer would be pulling double duty, as he was also tasked with
helping Phillips collect signatures in the Auburn vicinity.
Around 2
P.M. another collection was taken up as the proceedings wound down. Each man
donated twenty-five cents, yielding the fledgling lodge $3.25. Less the Mystic
Hall’s fee, the Green River Lodge’s general fund now stood at $1.75.
The General Fund Fight
The going, for Greer and others who had ranged far and wide
trying to build support for the new lodge, now got worse. The organizers
submitted bills for their endeavors to Lodge 407, hoping to be compensated for
their toil. On August 11, Puget Sound Lodge Financial Secretary J. H. Gilluly
handed Greer the bad news. Their requests were turned down because the Brotherhood’s
by-laws, as Gilluly interpreted them, did not allow it.
“I
regret very much that this matter was allowed to get in the shape it is in at
the present as I believe you boys should be compensated but, as I understand
the law, I could take no other stand and do my duty as financial secretary.”
This
opened the Pandora’s box of funding. Would the by-laws allow the Auburn men to
claim the dues they had paid into the Puget Sound Lodge’s general fund over the
years? Could a representative portion of the Puget Sound Lodge’s funds be
transferred to the new lodge? The Puget Sound Lodge’s general fund stood at
$6,500, a sizeable sum in 1919 (over $64,000 in 2000 dollars), and a sum
accumulated in large part from the toil of Auburn men.
After
receiving Gilluly’s note, Greer immediately fired off a letter to Timothy Shea.
He addressed two issues. First was the avoidance of issues at the Puget Sound
Lodge’s meetings and Shea’s insistence on an investigation that showed no signs
of being carried out in a timely manner. The insurgent’s patience was running
very thin on that point.
“We are
going to circulate the petition now and that will be completed in a few days
and will be sent to you. This petition will contain a majority of the members
of the Brotherhood on this division and if that will not do any good we don’t
know what will follow as they boys here are getting very much dissatisfied at
the way things are going in 407.”
Second
came issue of the general fund.
“The
reason that some do not want to leave 407 is on account of the money that they
have in the General Fund there, something about $6,500.00 and it does not look
right that after a person has belonged to that lodge for eight to 12 years or
longer to leave to someone else, as this was paid to a large extent by NP
members. What would your decision be on that?”
To
Greer’s way of thinking, even a small portion of this sum would settle the
lodge issue once and for all, as it would allow the men to build their own
meeting hall in Auburn.
Shea’s
grim reply was sent August 20.
“There
is no provision in the laws of the Brotherhood under which a portion of this
fund could be divided with the new lodge if it is determined that same shall be
organized.”
He went
on to cite the Brotherhood’s constitution chapter and verse.
“The
property of a lodge is not transferable, but owned in common by its members,
and when a member severs his connection with the lodge, his rights, title, and
interest in and to the property or funds, or any part thereof, are forfeited.”
The
acting president went on to explain it again, to make sure there would be no
mistakes about the consequences of what forming a new lodge would mean
financially.
“When
members of Lodge 407 transfer their membership to another lodge regardless of
the causes necessitating such transfer of membership, they lose all rights,
titles and interest in and to the property and funds of the lodge from which
the transfer is made.”
For the
right to belong to a lodge where they could represent themselves as they saw fit,
the Auburn men had to be willing to make a large financial sacrifice.
The G. C. C.
On October 29, T. P. Gorman of the Northern Pacific General
Grievance Committee finally weighed in. Detained for months by meetings of the
Association of General Grievance Committees, he had yet to take the ten days he
deemed necessary to travel to Seattle for an investigation of the matter. In
fact, he never would.
He wrote
to Shea, “If I understand your letter of August 20th, addressed to Brother
Greer, correctly, and the only question involved is the organization of an
additional lodge on the system, in order to make it more convenient for our
members to attend lodge meetings more frequently, I will not hesitate to give
my approval to the organization of this new lodge at Auburn . . . Such action
has my approval, and will be in line with the action of the other three
organizations on this division.”
However,
Gorman wanted a clarification. Would the second lodge also have a second
grievance committee, or would this be a simple relocation of the existing
Seattle lodge to Auburn?
Of the
former, he stated “This is question that should receive very careful
consideration.” Of the latter, “I would hesitate to approve such action, as
this would only result in reversing the situation.”
The
Brotherhood now moved towards resolution and compromise. There would be two
lodges for the convenience of men working out of Seattle and out of Auburn.
There would also be two grievance committees, each with well-defined
territories.
On November
10, Shea asked Gorman to define the jurisdictions of the two grievance
committees. Gorman’s reply of November 18, sent the matter back to the local
men.
“I can
see no good reason why the question of jurisdiction cannot be amicably adjusted
between the two lodges. I believe it would be impracticable for me to attempt
to define the jurisdiction of the two lodges, until such time as the lodes have
failed to agree between themselves.”
In
addition to this statement, Gorman also included a warning. Because of his
confidence in the men, he felt they would not “permit a situation to arise that
will destroy, in any measure, the efficiency of our organization on the
division.”
The Long Road to Compromise
Before the lodges could decide on what their respective
territories would be, the insurgents voiced their displeasure at the overall
situation. Greer, in a letter of November 24, stated in no unclear terms to
both Shea and Gorman that compromise was not what was wanted.
“As to
defining the limits of the jurisdiction of this lodge and Lodge 407, I will say
from all action taken on this matter in the past that what a majority of the
members here want and expect to get is one lodge and one grievance
committee on this division. I do not think that any more be said than this,
that if you try to [do] that, that there will be trouble and that is what we
want to avoid. The petition I believe was strong enough on what was wanted, and
anything short of that will not fill the bill. The members here are getting
where they don’t want anything more to do with 407 as it is not a fireman’s
lodge anymore but is controlled by men who are running engines and foreign road
men. When I write this I express the wishes of the 104 members whose names were
on the petition.”
Ironically,
the day after Greer mailed the petitioner’s displeasure, Shea wrote to inform
them of the Brotherhood’s tentative approval of the new lodge. As the 104
petitioning members of Lodge 407 constituted a majority and wished to organize
a new lodge, “Article 17, Section I, authorizes the institution on a lodge at
Auburn and I am asking General Secretary and Treasurer Hawley to send you a
preliminary outfit.” Applications for membership, applications for transfer of
membership, and a blank application for charter were on their way. Shea went on
to state, “I desire to make it plain that such a transfer of jurisdiction
cannot under any circumstances be arranged . . . it will be necessary for the
two lodges to agree among themselves as to their respective jurisdiction . . .
if the petitioners desire to proceed under these conditions they are at liberty
to do so.”
By
December 4, Shea had received the petitioner’s strident note. His response was
to reiterate his message of November 25. “I am thoroughly convinced . . . that
there would be no justice in arbitrarily removing the authority now resting in
Lodge 407 and transferring same to a new lodge.” It would also be “unfair not
to accord your petitioners with the same consideration as is accorded in all
other instances when it seems impossible to not agree as to the proper
disposition of any controversy.” The answer was pro forma – an investigation
was needed. This time, however, rather than months of delay, there would be
action. Vice President George K. Wark was on the way. He, and his schedule,
were not to be trifled with.
Wark
notified Greer, Good, and Gorman from Toronto, Canada, that he would arrive on
December 26. He would conduct his investigation from that time until the
evening of December 28, when he desired a special meeting be called to deal
with the issue. “I am particularly anxious,” Wark wrote, “to dispose of the
question at the earliest possible moment.” Wark meant for nothing to get in the
way of more important business.
Casting the Ballots
January 19, 1920, brought Wark’s report and the
Brotherhood’s final summary. In a three-page letter to T. P. Gorman, Shea wrote
out a detailed summary of the situation as it now stood. He outlined the
petitioner’s complaints, focusing on their refusal to set up a second grievance
committee which would divide the territory in conjunction with Puget Sound
Lodge 407.
“This
specification did not meet with the approval of the petitioners and the matter
was referred to Vice President Wark for personal investigation while on a
western trip. The question was taken up for investigation at a regular meeting
of Lodge 407 held on December 27th, which meeting was well attended, and at
which many diverse opinions concerning the subject were advanced.”
“This
investigation developed the fact that there are 23 or more switching crews
working at Seattle and that the majority of the engineers are engaged are
members of this Brotherhood; that there are 19 passenger crews and one local
freight crew located at Seattle, making a total of 43 firemen working out of
that point in addition to the engineer members engaged in switching service
exclusively. This fact seems to indicate that it would not be practicable to
move Lodge 407 from Seattle to Auburn as it would merely reverse the existing
conditions and leave the members at Seattle in identically the same condition
as our members at Auburn now find themselves.”
“My
investigation of the situation leads me to believe that there is necessity for
the organization of a lodge at Auburn and that Lodge 407 should be maintained
at Seattle for the benefit of members employed at that point. Under no
circumstances, however, can the members who make up the lodge at Auburn, if
instituted, deprive Lodge 407 from maintaining a local grievance committee, and
in the event it is organized, the two lodges must agree as to their respective
jurisdiction, subject to final determination by the General Committee in the
event of disagreement.”
For the
petitioners, the situation had not changed.
Shea
closed his letter asking Gorman to refer his statements, along with any
comments that Gorman, as head of the General Grievance Committee on the
Northern Pacific, might want to add, to his 15 local chairman across the
Northern Pacific. The vote was on.
Agreement
On March 16, 1920, W. S. Carter, president of the
Brotherhood, acknowledge the results of the vote on an Auburn lodge. Lodge 264
had failed to or abstained from voting, and four more had voted against the
organization, but ten others had voted in support of Auburn.
“The
majority of the members of the General Committee having voted in favor of the
organization of a lodge at Auburn, the application for charter will be approved
by me upon completion of the preliminary work and I am sending complete outfit
to Secretary Pro Tem Greer, this date.”
Nearly
ten months had passed since Greer and the petitioners had begun the fight. Now,
with a charter in hand, Green River Lodge 895 was officially sanctioned. There
was still one last problem to overcome – deciding where the jurisdictional
boundaries of the two local grievance committee’s would be drawn. This task
would take nearly five more years.
Only in
late August, 1924, was a serious measure taken. T. P. Gorman, acting through
Puget Sound Lodge 407 Chairman R. W. Moxley, proposed that the Seattle Division
be “divided into two districts, one district to come under the jurisdiction of
Lodge 407 and the other to come under the jurisdiction of Lodge 895. Lodge 407
will have jurisdiction over all passenger runs on the division and all the
freight runs and switch jobs terminating at Seattle, together with all freight
runs and yard service north of Seattle excepting such freight runs as have
their home terminal in Auburn. Lodge 895 will have jurisdiction over all
freight runs terminating at Auburn, mountain helper service at Lester and
Easton, together with all other freight runs and yard service on the first
district [Auburn to Ellensburg].”
In
itself, this section of the agreement was remarkably like an edict issued by
Seattle Division Master Mechanic Calvin S. Lairson more than a decade earlier.
His bulletin of May 12, 1913, concerning extra boards on the division, stated,
“We will maintain an extra list at Seattle, another at Auburn and another at
Lester . . . . It must be understood also that extra men on the extra list at
Lester will do the work out of Lester, Easton and Cle Elum and Ellensburg.
Extra men out of Auburn will do the extra work on all engines terminating at
Auburn and Tacoma. Men at Seattle will do the extra work on runs terminating at
Seattle and all outlying points north of Seattle on such runs which do not
terminate at Auburn.”
The new
territories simply followed the Seattle Division’s extra boards, themselves
established when Auburn Yard opened in 1913.
In addition
to spelling out the respective jurisdictions, the propose also named who would
act as representation, and which rules they would be governed by.
“It is
understood that each local chairman will represent the men of his own lodge
regardless of which jurisdiction they may happen to be working in. Such local
chairman in representing a member outside of the jurisdiction of his lodge will
be governed by such agreements or other regulations in vogue on that
jurisdiction, regardless of whether or not such regulations prevail in his own
district.”
There
was also an admonishment.
“It
would be the height of folly for Lodge 895 and Lodge 407 to engage in any sort
of controversy in connection with the jurisdictional matters as that would
simply weaken our efficiency in the handling of claims before division
officers.”
The
local chairmen, secretaries, and T. P. Gorman, signed the memorandum. The
agreement, based on an eleven-year-old master mechanic’s bulletin, went into
effect September 24, 1924, and brought to a close the six year feud.
|
Author: John A. Phillips, III. Title: The Six Year Feud.
URL: www.netcom.com/~whstlpnk/sixyearfeud.html. © March 20, 2002 |