MR JONES' OPINION
August 30th, 1897.
With regard to the question raised, whether, under the circumstances described, the trustees have power to allow payments to be made to the men on strike who have violated Rule 50, I am of opinion that they have no such powers, and any payment so made would appear to be a direct breach of trust. Nor do I think the position or liability of the trustees would in any way be altered by the subsequent vote of the Council approving such payments. The wording of Rule 51 is quite clear:—
"Any lodge ceasing work" "under the circumstances which have happened" "shall forfeit all claims on this Association"; and even though the whole Association were to vote in favour of strike pay being granted, I cannot see how the effect of that rule could be removed.
Standing upon that advice, the trustees refused to allow the money to be paid. The lodge requested the Executive to call a special Council to consider whether a grant should be given them. The request was refused, because, as the rules had been violated and the trustees had decided that no money should be paid, it was no use calling the Council, seeing, if the vote were given to pay, the decision could not be carried out. However, the question was brought forward at the conclusion of a Council, and the delegates decided to pay a grant equal to strike allowance, but the trustees refused to allow the money to be drawn from the bank.
The Executive then placed the position before the members. They said the giving of a grant was but a form of evading the provisions of the constitution. The decision of the Council placed the treasurer in a dilemma: either he had to refuse to pay, or face a prosecution in court for paying money contrary to rule. The Committee had, therefore, either to leave the treasurer to his own devices, or call the trustees together, and place the whole question before them. The meeting was held in the office of Dr R. S. Watson, who was one of the trustees. They decided to take the case to the Court of Chancery, and to inform the Washington Lodge of their intention, and give them the opportunity of being parties to the case. Mr Isaacs (the Association lawyer) was instructed to write the lodge, which he did. He said he was instructed to inquire whether they wished "to be a party to the proceedings, and if so, to kindly supply me with the name and address of any one of your members whom you may appoint to represent the lodge."
After some negotiations, and with the view to make the matter mutual, the Executive agreed to bear the cost of the trial for both sides. The hearing did not take place until the 8th of February 1900, but in order that we may keep it in close connection it will be well to consider it here. It was heard in the Chancery Court, before Justice Cozens Hardy. The Association was represented by Mr I. Isaacs, its legal adviser, and the lodge by Mr C. W. Newlands of South Shields. There were able barristers on both sides. The judge decided:
If these men came within Section 22 it must be because these particular men must be considered deserving, and also within the objects of the Association. He thought unless there was something to strike them out the argument on their behalf was well founded. The real question was whether, although the language of Rule 3 defining the objects of the Association included them, they had not by 51 been removed. He thought that was the case. He did not think he could limit the effect of that rule so as to make it mean that they should forfeit only the absolute right to have 10s. per week under Rule 52, which it was admitted they had lost. He thought the exclusion applied not merely to claims as of right, but to all protection from the Association, and they could not be deemed legally or properly objects of the benefits of the Association.
So far as the Executive and trustees were concerned that trial and decision were satisfactory, but the lodge said they wanted it taken to the Court of Appeal. So far as bearing the cost of the trial was concerned the pledge had been carried out, and the Committee were surprised when it was suggested to carry the case to a higher court. However, as they were desirous to have the case properly decided, and that there should be no room for doubt (the welfare of the Association being their great consideration), they agreed, and guaranteed the payment of the entire costs. The appeal was heard on November 11th and 12th, the Judges being Rigby, Romer, and Vaughan Williams.
A strong effort was made to reverse the decision. All the skill, plausibility, and sophistry of very able lawyers were used. The rules were purposely disparaged and travestied, in order that a prejudice might be created against them, but the judges unanimously agreed with the finding of the Court of Chancery.
This is a bare record of facts of a dispute and trial which was fraught with importance to the Association. It generated a great deal of bitterness. The leaders could have had no personal ends to serve. Their aim will be truly set forth by a quotation from the Monthly Circular for November 1900.
MONTHLY CIRCULAR, 1900
(The Lessons of the Trial)