H. B. Stone and G. W. Holdredge Correspondence, 1889

Following the strike of 1888, railroad officials were careful to avoid hiring union members and employees who had "behaved badly" during the 45-day strike. In this exchange, G. W. Holdredge, General Manager of the Burlington and Missouri River Railroad and H. B. Stone, Vice President of the Chicago, Burlington, and Quincy Railroad Company, work to clarify the status of workers who may or may not be eligible for re-hire. Railroad companies made an effort to keep agitators and violent strikers from reentering the railroad workforce.

PERSONAL.

Chicago,
March 13th, 1889. Mr. G.W. Holdrege,

G.M., B. & M. R.R., Omaha, Neb.

Dear Sir:-

I have your letter of March 9th, enclosing a list of engineers and firemen who have made application for reinstatement, prior to February 1st, 1889.

This list has been made up under a misapprehension. What I wanted, was to have your mark those who were so objectionable, that you would, under no circumstances, give them employment on the road, as I stated in my letter to you on Jan. 24th.

I am sorry that the mistake has occured, for my letter seems to me very explicit, and I wish you would have the enclosed list marked, and returned to me, as soon as possible, so that I may get it not later than Tuesday next.

Yours truly, Henry B. Stone

Omaha, Neb., March 13th, 1889.
H.B. Stone Esq., V.P.,
Chicago, Ills.,
Dear Sir:-

Replying to your letter of the 13th inst.

I return herewith list of engineers and firemen. I have talked this question over with our superintendents, and we think that there are objections to hiring any of the men whose names are not marked with red ink on the enclosed list. All of these men made a good deal of noise, and made threats of various kinds against the company and its officers. I did not suppose that so large a number ought to be debared from employment when the settlement was made in Chicago, but the fact is that we have no places, as you are aware, for any of the men at present, and I cannot see that it makes any practical difference. I find in talking over this question in detail that some of the superintendents have special reasons for not wishing to re-employ one man and some another, and it would seem to me that none of these men who are not marked with red ink should be re-employed.

Yours truly, G. W. Holdredge

Chicago, March 20, 1889.
G.W. Holdrege, Esq.,
General Manager, Omaha.
Dear sir:-

I have your letter of March 18th with list of engineers and firemen, which I return herewith.

The question is not in regard to filling vacancies for we are not likely to have any for sometime to come, but what is wanted is to know who of the applicants are so objectionable and have been so aggressive that we would under no circumstances give them employment on our road or recommend them to others.

With return of the enclosed list please mark those men who come into this objectionable class. [unclear]

Yours truly, Henry B. Stone

Enc.
[Annotation]What I want to know are [unclear]

Omaha, Neb.,
March 22nd, 1889.

H.B. Stone Esq., V.P., Chicago, Ills.,

Dear Sir:-

Referring to the enclosed papers, and answering yours of the 20th inst., about engineers and firemen.

I understood what is wanted from your previous letter, and intended to explain in mine of the 18th, that I have replied as definitely as practicable.

I hardly see how I can do more than take the judgement of our superintendents. They believe that under no circumstances should we employ any of the men given on this list not marked in red ink. The number is so large that we thought best to give all who applied letters indiscriminately, stating the length of their service on our road, and that they left on the strike of February 26th, 1888. We have given no further recommendation than this to any of the old men, but we have given letters of this kind to all who have applied.

It would seem to me if it is your intention to inform the committee of the brotherhood what men are debarred from re-employment, that all of the men not checked in red ink should be included. I believe that our superintendents are right in their judgment about this matter. The number being greater, however, than we expected when in Chicago, we have arranged to give letters as above stated.

Yours truly, G. W. Holdredge
[Annotation]I have talked[unclear]

Chicago, March 27, 1889.
Mr. G.W. Holdrege,
Gen'l Manager B. & M. R.R.,
Omaha, Neb.
Dear Sir:-

I have yours of March 22nd returning papers in regard to the old engineers and firemen who applied for work prior to Feb. 1st.

I am very sorry that any change whatever has been made from the instructions given in regard to letters of recommendation- Perhaps the only thing under the circumstances is to let it go.

I wish howevever, to have the list of engineers and firemen, which I return to you, marked as I requested. Your officers have marked as objectionable altogether more men than my judgement approves, and although, of course, I do not know individuals, I find that the average percentage marked objectionable on the other lines of the system is 17 per cent of the men who applied for work prior to Feb. 1st. I wish, therefore, that you would have your list revised and mark the worst men as objectionable, not letting the total number reach more than about 17 per cent of the whole number of applicants.

Please give this matter your personal attention and have the list returned to me as promptly as possible.

Yours truly, Henry B. Stone
Encl.

Omaha, Neb., April 1st 1889.
T.E. Calvert Esq.,
Lincoln, Neb.,
Dear sir:-

Referring again to the enclosed papers in regard to engineers and firemen, who are debarred from re-employment on our road.

Please arrange if you can, to cut the list of those we do not wish to re-employ, down to 17 per cent, as requested by Mr. Stone, and return papers with your reply as soon as possible.

Yours truly, G. W. Holdredge

Omaha, Neb., April 3rd 1889.
H.B. Stone Esq., V.P.,
Chicago, Ills.,
Dear Sir:-

Referring again to papers attached, in regard to engineers and firemen.

I beg to call your attention to Mr. Calvert's letter of April 2nd, next attached. Mr. Calvert has been over this matter very carefully with our Superintendent of Motive Power, Master Mechanics and Superintendents, and he believes that it is not possible for us to change the list intelligently. That is to say, if a further reduction in the number of men to be debarred from the service is made, he believes that we will be forced to arbitrarily check off a number of men who are equally objectionable to those that will be debarred. If you desire to have us do this, of course it will be done. I have objected, because it has seemed to me impossible to intelligently and honestly take any different stand from what we have in this matter. It seems to us, as Mr. Calvert says in his letter, that the men debarred are, generally speaking, all about "equally" objectionable, and if the list should be reduced to 17 per cent, it would not make much difference which of them are taken. At the time of the settlement in Chicago I did not realize that there would be so many men that ought to be debarred under the terms of the settlement, but after talking the matter over fully with our superintendents, I cannot but think that they are right. I can assure you that we have done the best we can to comply with your wishes, and that if it is absolutely necessary that a list should be sent with only 17 per cent of the men debarred, we can revise the list, but I think that the result will be unfair and unsatisfactory.

Yours truly, G. W. Holdredge

PERSONAL.
Chicago, April 6th, 1889.
Mr. G.W. Holdrege,
G.M., B. & M. R.R.,
Omaha, Neb.
Dear Sir:-

Answering your letter of the 3rd inst., in regard to engineers and firemen, I would say, that I want you to do the best you can in reducing the number on your black-list to somewhat near the average maintained on the rest of the System.

I do not tie you down to 17%, but anywhere from 15[crossed out and re-written as 10] to 20 per cent will do.

Yours truly, Henry B. Stone

Omaha, Neb., April 29th 1889.
H.B. Stone Esq., V.P.,
>Chicago, Ills.,
Dear Sir:-

I send herewith a list of engineers and firemen who went out on the strike a year ago, with a letter from Mr. Calvert explaining what he has done relative to your instructions, that the list of men debarred should be reduced to at least 17 per cent.

I should be glad to have sent you a list reduced as you desire without any comment, if it were possible to do so. I have asked Mr. Calvert to give his personal attention to the matter, and we do not seem to be able, without more explanation to furnish a list on which only 17 per cent should be debarred. Many of the men upon this list that are not debarred seem so objectionable, that I have thought it proper that you should have all the facts.

Yours truly,
Holdredge