The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1892-12-19
sPEER STATES THR Law.
What Those Who Interfere With
Central NAV Exnaot

What Those Who Interfere With the
Central May Expect.
There was nothing new In the recent
trouble between the operators and the Cen
trail railroad authorities yesterday. The
committee here is simply waiting for some
thing to turn up when the cases against
the operators arrested at Macon will
be called up. The four operators
under arrest are J. ". Stephens.
81. A. Hipenstall, Hagard and Chauney,
Their cases will be heard by Judge Speer
next Thursday. The time was set for that
day on motion Of the strikers attorney, Mr..
X. w. Patterson, who stated that he was
not prepared TO go to trial. In asking
continuance he pledged that the strikers
would take no new move against the rail-
road or interfere with it's property.
Judge Speer in granting the continuance
Saturday, made the following remarks on
the situation, synopsis Of whicn was pub
lished in the dispatches Of the MORNING
News yesterday:
''If any contempt Of the court has been
committed, why it may Just as well be
punished Thursday or after Thursday. as
at this time This is an accomplished fact,
IL contempt has already been committed.
and the court desires as far as possible to
avoid any further friction. The truth is,
neither MIR. Wadley nor Mr.. Conner is the
chief sufferer II there Is friction in which
these proprietors are injured; nor do the
people who mainly own the Central rail-
road appear In the place as sufferers. The
creditors of the Central railroad, so large is
the value or the property, are amply secured.
"For instance, taking the tripartite bonds
that fall due in January, they are IN the
hands OF banking institutions In the north.
About $4,000. 900 worth of them fall due in
January. These creditors have Sl5,oOO,0OO
OF property pledged TO secure those bonds
80 10 is a matter Of no concern to them
whether there Is any temporary embarrass-
ment ID the affairs Of the road or not
The loss. IL there is any loss, falls on
our own people. Il falls on the wild
ows and orphans who have invested in this
property, and for whom the court is now
struggling to save as much Of the property
as possible in the final adjustment of its
liability, and any injury that comes TO the
road comes very severely and very pain
FULLY and, may say, very cruelty on our
own people.
snow IL the court is 30 pass upon these
questions it will decide them in accordance
with the law and the facts as it sees them.
I'm the meantime there must be no inter-
ference whatever with the management of
tne road. 1t Is very serious matter to do
anything willtully which tends to the injury
OF property In the hands of she court or
course, 1t II a serious matter at any time to
interfere with property like that of a rail-
ROAD corporation, on the part OF strikers or
anybody else. Here is the situation
In this case. This Is an insolvent corpora
ton, and its property is In the hands of the
court. 1t Is, therefore, In the hands of the
governments, and an Interference with that
property is an interference with and a con-
tempt OF the power of the government and
the power of the people which Is back of
the government II there have been those
what have offended, or If there be those who
will offend, 1t may become a very serious
matter TO them.
"For instance, have case before me.
It is decision of Judge Pardee in the case
OF Higgins, where the Texas and Pacific
Railway Company was an insolvent cor
poration In the hands of the court. There
was q strike, and some of the operatives
interfered IN various ways with the man.
agement OF the property. in the hope OF en-
oarrassing its management and bringing
about a settlement. The court held: 1T Is
well settled law that whoever unlawfullv
inserferes with property in the possession of
court is guilty of contempt of that court.
and regard it as equally we'll settled that
whoever unlawfully interferes with officers
and agents OF the court In the full and COM
rlete possession and management of prop
erty IN custody of the court is guilty OF a
contempt OF court, and il is Immaterial
whether this unlawful interference comes in
the way OF actual violence or by intimida-
tion and threats. The employees of receiv-
ers, although pro hac vice, officers of
the court, may quit their employment, as
can employees OF private parties or corpor-
ations, provided they do not thereby inten-
tionally disable the property; but they must
quit peaceably and decentiy. Where they
combine and conspire to quit with or with
out notice, with the object ard in
tent or Gripping the property
or its operation, have no doubt
that they thereby commit a con-
tempt; and all those who combine and con-
spire with employees to thus quit, or, as Of
fcials Of labor organizations, issue printed
orders to quit or TO STRIKE with an intent to
embarrass the court in administering the
property, render themselves liable for cons
tempt Of court
Much more then does 1t follow that those
who committed actual acts of violence
threatening employees or oursing the officers
OF the court and OF the receiver, or uniting
to starVe out operatives or things OF that
sort are liable for contempt
Now we all understand the Iaw.n