The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1893-04-04
Employees May Quit Work, but They
MustFinish Their Run Before Doing So.
Rule IL of the Brotherhood Held by Judge Taft
TO Be Unlawful When Put Into Effect
Grand Chief Arthur Perpetually EniOined.
WHEN ENGINEERS MAY QUIT.

WHEN ENGINEERS MAY QUIT.
Judge Kicks Holds that Men on the Road
Must Compiete Their Run.
TOLEDO. April 3-The federal court room
was thronged. this morning. to hear the
decisions in the two cases arising out of
the Ann Arbor strike, which were heard o
week ago. Chief Arthur was not present,
being re presented by counsel. During the
reading of the two long opinions almost
breathless silence prevailed, and at vari-
Gus points there was applause attempted.
which, however. was speedily checked.
The first case was that of the
eight engineers and firemen of the
Lake Shore road, who quit the
company's service rather than haul boy
cotted cars. The decision, which was by
Judge Ricks, is in line with the informal
talk be gave these men on the afternoon Of
their arrest, but which was misconstrued
widely into declaration that q man can be
compelled to work though he desires to
quit his employ er's service. The decision,
briefly, is that q man may quit work when
he shall choose. If he quits In good faith;
but an engineer out on run must COM
is as follows
This suit was instituted by the Toledo, Ann Arr
bor d North Michigan Railway Company to COM
pei the Lake Shore & Michigan Southern rail-
road. the Pennsylvania and other defendants TO
receive from 1t and TO deliver 10 IL freight and
cars destined from one State to another, COM
monty known as interstate freight. The Dill was
drawn TO enforce the third section of the inter
state-cOmmerce act, which provides that II
shall be unlawful for any common carrier s.b-
ject to the provisions OF this act to make or
give any undue or unreasonable preference or
advantage to any particular person, company,
firm, corporation or locality, or any particular
description OF traffic, in any respect whatso-
ever, or TO subject any particular person, COM
ticular description OF traffic 70 any undue or un-
reasonable predjudice or disadvantage In any
ject TO the provisions of that act are defined by
the statute to be ''any common carrier or
carriers. engaged in the transport
by railroad or partly by railroad and
partly by water, when both are under q common
control, manageme Mt, or arrangement. for a con-
tinuous carriage or shipment from one State or
Territory of the United States or the District of
Columbia to any other state or Territory or the
The subject matter Of this litigation is, there
fore, the construction and enforcement OF an act
of Congress, and the court acquires Jurisdiction
because OF the federal question involved. That
such question is involved, L think too plain for
serious controversy. II is sufficient to constitute
q case for cOgDiZance by federal court IL u In
wolves but single ingredient or question de-
pendent on the Constitution, or law or a treaty
of the United states, although IL may at the same
on q general principle of law. Chief Justice
Marshall, in Osborn va. United States Bank, .
Wheaton. 73s, considered this point and came to
when II question TO which the judicial power or
the Union is extended by the Constitution forms
an ingredient of the original case; It is SIN In
isdlction OF that cause, although other questions
of fact or law may be involved in IT." Remedies
OF similar nature might undoubtedly be IN
voked under statutes and the common law, but
the act in question affords the broadest and most
effective relief and the jurisdiction Is, therefore.
safely founded upon that law.
THE TEMPORARY INJUNCTION.
Upon the filing of this bill on the 18th day of
March, and upon the application of the COM
plainant to me in chambers at Cleveland, a
mandatory injunction was allowed. directed to
the defendants, their agents, officers servants
and employees, and it was therein ordered that
the said defendants. Albert G. Blair. Jacob 8.
Morris, the Pennsylvania Company, the Wheel
ing & Lake Erie Railway Company. the Lake
Shore & Michigan Southern Railway Company,
the Michigan Central Railroad Com ,any the
Cincinnati. Hamilton & Dayton Railroad Com
pany, the Columbus. Hooking Valley & Toledo
Railway Company, the Toledo & Ohio Central
Railway Company, the Cincinnati, Jackson IL
Mackinaw Railway Company, and each Of them
and their officers, agents servants and employees
be and they are hereby enjoined and restrained
from refusing to offer and extend to said Toledo,
Ann Arbor & North Michigan Railway Company
the same equal facilities for interchange of traf-
fic on interstate business between said railway
companies as are enjoyed by other railway COM
panies, and from refusing to receive from said
Toledo, Ann Arbor IL North Michigan Railway
Company cars billed from points In one State to
points in another State which may be offered to
said defendant companies by the complainant at,
and from refusing TO deliver in like manner to
said complainant cars which may be billed
over over said GO, complainanfs line from points
which may be offered to said defendant compa-
nies by the complainant and from refusing to
deliver in like manner to said complainant cars
which may be billed over complainant's line
from points In one State to points In other States.
Ii was ordered that a writ Of injunction DO Is
prayed for in the bill OF complainant, to remain
In force until tie further order of court herelu"
The application for this order was made to me
at chambers. in Cleveland. late on Saturday
SH in the | bill disclosed an a e@ergency eSs 0h, in
which prompt action was necessary.
order in 1881 on Di,l for an Injunction filed in
this court by the Wheeling d. Lake Erie railroad
as against its engineers. firemen and trainmen
who had refused 10 handle interstate-conlmerce
freight loaded on cals consigned to various
ports on Lake superior for Superior and MicLi-
gan. The bill in this case clearly entities the
complainant to relief against the defendant
railroads who were threatening to refuse to re-
section of the interstate-commerce law
above quoted made it mandatory up
on connecting railroads to receive and
deliver passengers and freight. and to afford
equal facilities for the interchange OF traffic
Corporations can act only through their officers,
visions OF the law which apply TO the corpora
ton apply with equal force TO its officers and
employees. The authority of the court to issue
such an order has been questioned. but IL rests
ON well-established principles. In Beadle vs..
Perry, L. r., ), Eq. 400, mandatory injunction
was granted on motion By Sir John Stewart, "
C. In giving judgment in that case he said:
Reference mas been made to a supposed rule OF
court that mandatory iniunctions cannot prop
erly be made except at the hearing OF the cause
i never he rd of such a rule"
ONLY ONE ENGINEER IN CONTEMPT.
Judge Ricks discussed at great length
the right of q court of equity to give de.
cision In the pending case and then said:
Now let us apply these general principles of
equity, which are consistent with every rule OF
natural law aud justice TO the facts OF this case
so far as they affect those now charged with
contempt OF court. The evidence shows that
according to the rules and customs OF the COM
pany, the engineers were paid 1915 for run of
The time for computing compensation began at
the hour they were called TO leave the yard aud
ended when they gave up their engines In the
yard, and they were entitled to pay for
that time, even though their engines
DID not sr tSsrs,ors move W wheel .sa Their
from the hour when their compensation began.
That period of service continued during the
time usually occupied in making the run for
which they were called. During that period
they were constantly subject to the orders OF the
company. ana by custom and usage the relation
of I'M a. a ~ I'M RI N ~ hat