The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1893-04-09
THE NEW DOCTRINE OF SERVICE
CONTRACTS.

As United States Judge Kicks first
formulated his proposition touching the
duty Of an employee and the power lodged
In the courts to control him in the per-
Torrance OF that duty. the matter was
very simple. though the doctrine an
nounced was very detestable. The court
had enjoinsd the prosecution OF boy
colt OF n railroad by the Brotherhood
OF Engineers. Thereupon five engineers
and three firemen resigned from the rail-
road company's employment and quilted
its service. Judge Kicks had them served
with an order 10 show cause why they
should not be punished for contempt Of
court In the cause wherein the injunc-
tion against the boycott had been made
by resigning from and quitting the com
panys service after the order was made.
In making this order he used the follow
ing language. which now stands upon the
records OF the court as a part OF its
official proceedings. 10 wit:
''You cannot always choose your own
time and place for terminating the rela-
Hons" between yourselves and your en-
ployers.
This is very plain and distinct an
pouncement that in the opinion Of Judge
Picks the court has the power to compel
employees 10 specifically perform a con-
tract TO perform service which they
may have made and entered into, and,
under that announcement. we all knew
just where we stood. When the order to
show cause came on for a hearing. Judge
Kicks discharged all the men. but one,
but he held that that one had committed
q contempt OF court and he imposed on
him fine as punishment. The tele-
graphic report Of his action contained In
ell the New York papers made the Judge
wholly ignore the phase Of the case con-
tanned in the extract from the preliminary
proceedings which We have quoted above.
and caused him 10 place his order finding
the man guilty Of contempt Of court and
imposing a fine upon him upon another
ground. to wit. the deliberate and wilful
disobedience OF a lawful order OF the
court OF which ne had knowledge. The
New York papers constructed their edi-
torial comments. accordingly, upon the
theory that Judge Kicks had abandoned
his proposition that a court Of equity
had authority to require an employe to
specifically perform a contract of service
that he had entered into We conse-
quently felt constrained 10 modify our
own remarks so as 10 treat the subject
from the same standpoint
Nevertheless. the account OF what took
place in court telegraphcd TO the Wash
hgton papers and TO all the papers south
OF Washington. made Judge Kicks, in
hning the engineer. repeat exactly the
language which we have quoted above.
We have endeavored TO find out what is
the real truth Of this matter, but have
90 far been unable TO do 1t. though we
believe that the report which the Wash
ington and Southern newspapers contain
ed was the correct one, and that Judge
Kicks adhered to the doctrine that the
court could compel an employe specifically
to perform his contract
Discussing the subject in its issue OF
Friday last the New York Sun has the
following to say:
The liberty Of laboring man whose
term OF service is not fixed by contract.
10 quit private employment peaceably
a. VIII, as a means Of lettering his con-
oiuon. by securing higher wages or other
wise probably viii never be denied bv
any LEGISLATURE or court OF justice; but
even TINS rule has obvious limitations
Inc worknglnan must not strike under
euch circumstances as 10 infict criminal
INJURY upon others. A nod carrier. for
example. could not DO allowed to leave
9ss1'uhsn ~ yas half xAx ~ n isAA~a /