Los Angeles daily herald., 1888-03-17
Pacific, General dorwin contended
that the bill was file3 against them Nv

racine, Generai SOfWln cOntendcd
that the bill was FLED against them by
the Burlington and Missouri River
road as parcel of the plan to compel
them to work in di1ect opposition to
their wishes for the purpose Of aiding
complainants, in their fight. There
was no law to compel the men to work
when they desired 10 quit, and that
alone seemed to be the object Of the
bill.
eff that be the sole object" said
the Court, "then this case has no
business here. shall never order
man to work egainst his will by in
junction. Such an action would be
ineQuitable for the reason that an.
other remedy exists-suit for breach
OF contract, whenever the terms of
contracts as prescribed are not carried
out"
During General Corwin's argument,
the word strike" was used several
| times.
The Court said: "This word sstrike"
| is of modern origin. The question is
regarding its legal definition and on
that the case may turn. lift can be
shown that its meaning in this case is
a project to create disturbance, derail
cars and ditch trains, then the Court
can order writ of injunction to re-
strain the contemplated injury and
the charge of conspiracy is we'll taken.
If, on other hand, the word in this
case is Synonymous with an intention
of quitting work and quietly walking
out, do not see how this Court is
going to restrain this action. That is
all there is in the case as it stands at
present that lean see."
]. M. Thurston, for the Union Pa
cific, prefaced his speech with the
remark that it was the desire of the
Union Pacific to have the restraining
order SO modified as to permit the
company to haul Burlington cars to
an extent compatible with public
commercial interests and the safety
and convenience of passengers. The
answer of the company denied con-
spiracy with the Burlington and Mis-
souri, road, as charged by the Brother
hood. With a full knowledge OF the
manifold duties imposed by various
acts of Congress, the Union Pacific
|
offered by the Burlington road. Ii
the men further absolutely refused to
obey and quit work the Union Pacific
will have to cease operations because
Of inability to supply their places"
| @. j. Green, on behalf of the
Burlington and Missouri road, said
that where the common action of a
body of men ended to produce the
same results by the same common
ends controlled by the same power,
and the object was to damage and in
jure any individual or corporation, it
was not only in the power of the court
to sustain such contemplated damage,
but clearly his duty to do SO.
T. N. Marquette, General Attorney
for the Burlington and Missouri, fol-
lowed. He contended that the an
swer of Nicholas Weeks for the Union
Pacific engineers represented the sta
tus Of all defendants in the case. The
Brotherhood, which is an oath-bound,
secret society, holding meetings and
acting under general head, has di-
rected its members as body, all over,
to refuse to work on the Burlington
| and Missouri road uulealhigher wages
\ are paid, and refuse; llow IL aem-
bers TO work for roads hauling Bur.
lington and Missouri traffic. These in
themselves, he contended, are con-
spiracies and in direct violation of the
free contract system and of the law.
Judge Dundy said that he would
give his decision tomorrow.