The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1885-03-30

,,IE.s, 20 .,iuo y, intent or. their bait. u
)harles c. Allen Tor tie respondents, '
)oollttle and Schanb' cher. Brewer, j.
Crally.) The iaors in reference 10 this |
,ase arc very Obvious. 1t does not APP I
pear that thes defendants In the first
instance st9.rted out TO obstruct the re-
ceivers III their management of the
road, in some way they had ascertain
ed that the road was in possession OF
the receivers appointed by this court,
and that 1t was not prudent to Interfere
with them. But 10 is clear that while
engaged in n strike against the MIS-
souri, Pacific railroad, they did interfere
with the management OF the engine and
freight cars under the control OF such
receivers, and did obstruct such y
ceiyers in carrying on the business VI
the road placed in their charge 10y this
court. Now while in ono sense they
ssnuot be charged with contempt in
that they intended TO obstruCt this
court and its officers in the discharge
of its and their duty, yet they placed
themselves in this attitude. They en-.
gagged In an unlawful enterprise,
and while so engaged, they did
interfere with tho officers Of this
court in the management of the road
which was in their hands as receivers.
Now, If Il party engaged In alawlul UNI
dertaking Internationally interferes
with some of the officers of this cour',
aud obstructs them in the discharge OF |
their duties, this court Is not tenacious |
OF any mere prerogatlye, and would lot |
such action pass almost without notice,
but whore parties are engaged In that |
which il OF itself unlawful, in doing
that which they have no right 10 do,
and In doing so obstruct the officers OF
this court, although intending no con-
! tempt, that Is g very different thing.
| Suppose a party OF men, and / state
| this merely as an illustration, combine
to c0mmiJ an assault and battery upon
one person, and without intending so TO
injure, do through mistake, actually
seize and beat n third person. Although
such beating was unintenti0nal, perhaps
accidental, yet rs they were engaged in
an unlawful enterprise, It is iasJ the
same az though thoy intended that UNI
lawful attack upon the person actually
receiving tho injury. And so here,
though those defendants aid not set out
to obsLruct tho officers of this court and
the receivers OF tho Wabash company,
Ia their administration of Lhat property,
yen they did set out 20 Obshuot some
persons in the exercise Of their loyal
rights; they did set out to do that which
they had no right Ia do, aud this court
is justified, indeed il Is ita duty, mas.
much ny they did obstruct tho officers of
this court, To regard it just the same,
or nearly tho same AZ though they star
tod out to Obstruct the officers Of this
court, the receivers the Wabash rail
way com auy.
Mr.. Charles g. Allen: DO ] under
stand your honor 60 say that tho act of
striking, merely carrying out of tho
1T ril1o, unlawfulf
The Court; (Judge Brewer) II Il not
the mere stopping OF work themselves,
out IL is preventing the owners Of the
road from managing their own engines,
and running their own cars; that il
whore the wrong comes in; anybody
has right TO quit work, bat interfer-
ing with other persons working, and
preventing tho owners ofrailrOad trains
from managing those trains as they 500
lit--thore is whore the wrong comes in.
believe Judge Drummond in r series
OF cases that cgno before him, across
the river I'm Illinois, whore there was
direct resistance by parties engaged in
such strike, To the receivers appointed
10y him, sentenced the ring-leRders TO
six months Ia tho county jail. la this
case | do not leel rs though it would bp
right to treat Thorn exactly rs though
they occupied the same position, and
yet as / said before do not think IL Is
q matter that can loo overlooked; things
| OF this Kind are not TO he encouraged or
| tolerated, and the sentence VIII loo that
| they shall DO confined In the county iail
Tor 60 days, aud pay the cost Of this At
| tHchmont.
Treat j (orally): As far as I am CON
ccrued, / should have giyon sOvorer
punishment IL tho matter had b0en lott
solely to me,and should emphasize tho
statement worry strongly, that whilst IL
must be admitted, and no ono would
admit 10 more readily than tho ludgos
of this court, as to the right of every
man 90 determine whether he will on
gage IN this or Othor employment, and
would protect hm in alright, through
any proper judicial proceeding, no must
not resort to lawlesS measures 10 iniuro
the property or tho person o. any other
party. More particularly Is that true
With regard 10 tho receivers of courts.
II there was any Just ground for COM
plant, 20 Tar "a tho su-Cailod strikers
were concerned, this tribunal was open
TO have thOm present their m tiers here,
aud the court would have instructed the
receivers with regard 90 it, aud ono of
tho prominent reasons why courts ara
SO prompt 10 punish mon who Interfere
with receivers Ia tho custody and con
troll of tho property committed to thom
| by law, rs the fact that any QUO engaged
In employment undor thOm, can have
ample r0dross hy applying 10 tho court
with respect Thereto, Now, instead of
coming to this court TO mako applica-
ton, ~ some other parties have done
othor omployes, thoy choose TO engage
IN lawlo5s enterprise, whereby were
! involved, not only the sloppage OF CONF
morco, but perhaps loss OF millions of
| dollars and merchants and private In
| dividuals and all classes werO injured
! by this lawl0ss proceeding. Aud now
| the party comes ana says evontually:
81 did not know that was Interfering
| with tho officers of this court" But no
did know that he was interfering with
| property that he had no right To intar-
Zero with and "porohauce ho ovorstep-
ped tho limit and involved himself
| within tho jurisdiction OF this COURT"
! turth0r, tive did not directly, by phys
ical force do sundry and divers thing;
we merely requested other persons to
do IT," a specimen pretensol The
court must DO supposed to know, rs ov-
erybouy else does, what tho object was;
it was the threatening intimidation
which lay bohind the whole matter
aud hcnoo thOy are within tho rule,
"a request" undOr such circumstances
was u throat. The court cannot be
blinded by such mere spocious LAM
guage The fact is thore; tho positive
fact tina here was direct threat and an
intimidation. Tho form OF Language
amounts ~ nothing. Courts don't stick
In tho letter, they look at tho fact, tho
act itself, and that was tho case hore.
Parties determine lawlossly to stop the
commerce OF the country, so far AK
these roads wero concernod,a and to do il
! 10y force, by Threats aud by intimlda
tqn, and In doing " they interlorod
with the property OF this company nm.
der the charge OF tho court, and instend
of coming to this court Ii they had any
| wrong 10 DO rodressed, aud asking tho
court to adjust their cause; they took,
| ia other words, tho law in their own
hands, aud they must suilor the oonse.
| quencOs OF doing It, OfcOurso [ assent.