The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1893-04-04
IMPORTANT LABOR DECISIONS.
rconc.uaed rom FRS. Page

Al OLlnNi LII b1NAOAOAtDs
-
TConc.uded from FRS. Page.l
the company. and having notice OF a mandate
from a court or compete Mt Jurisdiction "a 10 how
that work must he done, lie must In his work
obey the mandate.
The reason for the rule is obvious. 1t would be
impracticabie To enforce the relation of master
and servant against the will OF either. Especial
where nothing but the most paIastaking aud de-
voted attention on the part OF the employe will
s s;eslsfe d = ps'per dis % q even lis ser resp0 To
be against public policy 10 expose the lives OF
the travelling public and the property of the
shipping public 10 the danger which might arise
from the enforced and unwilling performance
OF so responsible a duty. The argument Is made
That as great public Interests are dependent upon
the continuous performance hy common carriers
OF their duties equity should intervene by i'll
junction to prevent the Gripping OF those public
agents by unlawful strikes. IL is true that rem
edies in courts of equity expand and progress 10
meet the wants of changing civilization and con-
ditIons, hut that expansion and progression are
along well-dehned lines. and the enforced spe-
cinc performance OF n contract OF service wolld
be a marked departure from the precedents to be
found in n century of equitable relief.
We finally believe that in view OF the forego-
Ing this court can enjOin Arthur from melting.
inducing or procuring The members OF the
companies 10 carry out Rule IL and refuse 10
handle complainants freight. We have no
doubt of il. For him TO do SO will be to cause an
unlawful. irreparahle injury TO complainant. and
viii be 10 induce on the part or the employees a
violation of the mandatory order OF this court.
Either OF these grounds is ample for the exercise
upon him OF the restraining power OF q writ OF
Injunction. Reason and The authorities here.
gineers in the employ of defendant com-
panies may not be enioined from
there is no rule of equity which prevents the
court from enjoining Arthur from advising. in
d usn :, Or p,, procuring 20 u n n s1t en- employees; in pursu,
companies for the purpose OF causing a wrong
full. criminal and irreparable injury To the com.
plainant. The effect would be. not to compel
the employees 10 remain In the service OF the de-
PENDANT companies against their will, but 1t
would he TO keep from them a wrongful influ-
eDce which, IL exerted, would be likely TO cause
such an injury. IL Is immaterial whether the
step TO be taken by Arthur is merely ministerial.
as II said, or whether IL involves discretion on
his part. The operation OF the rule as against
complainant is unlawful will do 1t irreparable
injury, and, therefore. with the exception already
noted, every step In Its enforcement may be en-
Joined.
Here Judge Taft cites numerous author
tiles to sustain his position. de then says:
1t vas suggested in argument that an injunc-
ton would not issue against the commission of
times been announced. but it will he found. on
examination of the case, that IL applies only
whore the injury about to he caused Is 10 the
public alone and where the proper remedy is by
criminal proceedings. Where an unlawful in
junction to private rights is threatened and ir-
reparable injury il likely TO ensue, equity Will
enjoin on behalf OF the person whose rights are
TO pe invaded. Notwithstanding the fact that a
criminal proceeding on behalf of the public for
the same s.ct Will also lie.
In closing allusion Is made to that part
of the original restraining order which
compelled Arthur to rescind the direction
he had already given for the enforcement
of Rule IL. The Judge says:
1t was mandatory In It's character and, there
fore. unusual, but presidents in equity album
aantly justify it. The effect OF Arthur's act was
continuing. and would In the immediate future
4 hnva Qanaad tho iniurv which entnnlainanr had
the right to be protected against. There was alb
solutely no way OF maintaining the status quo
between the parties, which is the proper office OF
a preliminary Injunction. but by compelling at
once a recession OF Arthur's act. Had It's effect
been allowed to continue future equitable relief
would have been entirely futile. The whole in
jury would have been done. The rule covering
the court In such cases Ia as follows:
section 2-That when there is willful and un-
lawful invasion OF plaintiffs rights against his
protest and remonstrance. the injury by being
a continuing one. mandatory. injunction may be
granted In the first instance"
The present was an extreme case. The injury
threatened was willful, wrongful and criminal,
was necessary and conld by no possibility under
the circumstances work injury to anyone. The
motion Of the temporary Injunction against de-
fendant Arthur Is allowed IS prayed.
How the Decisions We're Received.
TOLEDO. O.. April 3.-Ask a Lake Shore
or Ann Arbor striker tonight what he
thinks of the decisions and he will prob
ably reply: lob. l Dunno" These two
words just about express the general sItaa-
ton here at the present time. The majority
of the strikers seem utterly unable to de-
eide for themselves whether or not they
have gained q point III the controversy,
and the intelligent public is in about the
same fix. A great many seem of the
opinion that the railroads have got the
l heat Or tho daoI ipoanuoh M n aipi notinn
against Arthur has bsen made per-
petual. and the spirit of the new
law promulgated by the court carried out
in the conviction of the defendant Lennon.
On the other hand, the few strikers who do
pretend to understand the situation claim
that the injunction against Arthur does not
affect them in the least. inasmuch as he has
no power to call q strike or order q boyo ott;
and that the discharge of the seven other
strikers is an evidence that 1t will be
almost impossible to enforce the new la W
com polling all employees, while still in the
service of q railroad. to handle the freight
of any other road on which there may ex-
list q boy colt.
The attorneys for the brotherhood assert
that there was no more reason for the con-
viction of Lennon than there was for the
conviction of the other strikers All the
objections made oy the court TO the charges
of the prosecution against the other strik-
ers apply, they say, just as well to Len.
mons case. The only possible difference.
they claim. is that Lennon was on the
road. and in the performance of q contract
when he quit work. They admit
that he might be held RESPONSE.
bic for violating that contract.
but say that IN that case the
United States court would have no juris-
diction In the matter. and that if be were
to he held on the charge he would have to
be tried in criminal court and dealt with
accordingly. The case. these attorney
claim. has not been finally and completely
considered. The matter has resolved itself
down to the old original question of
whether or not the employees OF q railroad
shall have the right 10 quit work when
they feel so disposed. In spite of all
claims to the contrary the attorneys
say this is the real vital question,
and they say that If the courts
OF last resort decide that employees
shall not have the right TO so quit. that the
entire system OF labor unionism in this
country will be wrecked. and that govern
mental control of the railroads will not be
far of. No evidence has been produced. it
Is claimed. tending To show that either Mr..
Arthur or any of his men entered into q
criminal conspiracy. The act of quitting
was not, they say, lone with the intention
of producing disastrous results upon the
property or business of the railroads. If
workinQmen are not TO be allowed To act in