The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1893-04-04
AGAINST B0YC0TTING.
JUDGE RICES' DECISION IN THE
CASE or CHIEF ARTHUR
In the Ann Arbor Injunction Csse-Judge
Taft's Decision Pronounces the Bro
therhood a Conspiracy.


Arbor railcad wherein an injunction is
granted against Chief Arthur, OF the
Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers.
restraining him from issuing, promulgat-
ing or continuing in force any rule Of the
Brotherhood which shall require or COM
mand any employees of the various con-
Meeting lires 10 boycott the Ann Arbor
road
In substance TIE decision in the latter
case is as follows:
A temporary restraining order was is
sued by me against Arthur. \ hearirg
| has circe been had, and the question row
is whether on the evidence produced the
order shall be continued in force Until the
! final decision In the case. The original
! bill was filed against eight railway COM
| panes. An amendment was afterwards
filed making two defendants, p. NJ. Arthur
and +. y. Sargent, who was subse-
| quenfly discharged as he was a non-rcsi-
! dent OF the district. As 10 Arthur, the
amendment charges that he. rs chief Of
| brotherhood exercises controlling in
| fuenCe upon It's members in all matters,
and that one OF It's rules requires all its
members in the employ Of any railway
| company whenever an order to that effect
shall be given by itS said chief officer.
10 refuse to receive. handle or carry cars
Of freight from any other railroad COM
pany whose employees. members of said
association. have engaged iu a strike. such
as the strike that has been declared
against the complainant by the members
Of the Bro hcrhood with ArthLr's consent
and approval that Arthur publicly an
nounces that unless complainant shall
submit 10 tho demands of i.s striking en-
ployss he will order th~ rule above stated
-.
trsvention OF the Interstate commerce
law, and is intended to induce the en-
ployes Of the defendant companies TO
violate that law and the previous order
OF this court and that Arthur with others
Is conspiring 10 ttat end
The court holds that II has jurisdiction
Of the subject matter Of controversy un-
der the Interstate commerce law
judge Taft. recitlng the happenings Of
the strike. says that Arthur sent tele-
grams 10 eleven chairmen Of the general
adjustment committees on as many diff
ferent railroads notifying them that a
legal strike was on and to obey the
laws Of the BrotherhC od.
A legal strike I'm Brotherhood parlance
means one consented to by the Grand
Chief. His consent is necessary under
the rules OF the order to entitle the men
thus out Of employment TO the three
months pay allowed to striking members.
Arthur admits that the particular law
20 which he referred I'm this dispatch was
one adopted by the Brotherhood al Den
yer three years ago. but which is not
published I'm the printed copy Of the con
stitution and bylaws. u is as follows:
'lsth. That hereafter, when an issue has
been sustained by the Grand chief and
carried into effect by the brotherhood
oc Locomotive Engineers, II shall be
recognized as a violation Of obligations
Tor Il member OF the Brotherhood Of Lo-
ccmotive Engineers Association. who
may be employed on railroad running
IL connection with, or adjacent TO- said
road. 10 handle the property belonging
to said railroad or system in any way
that may benefit said company in which
the Brotherhood Of Locomotive Engineers
Is a issue until the grievance or issue. Of
whatever nature or kind, has been ami
cably settled"
Judge Taft holds that all persons COM
bining TO carry out the provisions of the |
above rule l. are Liable to penalties pre-
scribed in section 10 of the interstate |
commerce law.
This is true because as already shown |
the object u the conspiracy is 10 induce. |
procure ard compel defendant companies |
and their employees to refuse equal facil!- |
lies ~ Tie NotupidllldDl company lOr tle |
Of interstate freight.
Ii closing alluslon should be made 10
that part of the original restraining order
herein which compelled Arthur to rescind
the direction he had already given for
the enforcement of rule T. There was alb
solutely no way Of maintaining the status |
quo between the parties (Which is the
proper office Of q preliminary injunction)
but by compelling at once recision of
Arthurs act. The present one was an
extreme case. The injury threatened was
wlful. wrongful and criminal aud mau-
date. though not a frequent remedy. WAS
necessary and could by no possibility
under the circumstances work an injury
10 any one.
The motion for a temporary injunction
against the defendant, Arthur, is allowed
Is prayed for.
Judge Rcks decision in the casa OF
he Lake Shore was briefly as follows:
The suit was instituted by the Ann
Arbor Railroad Company 10 compel the
lake Shore and other railroads 20 handle
is business. known as interstate freight.
rhe interstate commerce law made il
upon conn scting railroads 10
eceiVe and deliver passengers and freight
md to afford equal facilities for the inter
hange OF traffic. Corporations can set
ervlnts. so that the mandatory provis-
ons Of the law which apply TO the cor
'OratiOn apply with equal force TO It's
ficers and employees. The authority OF
he court to issue such an order has been
Questioned. but il rests on well-establish-
d principles.
1t Is said that the orders issued in this
ase are without precedent. Every lust
rider or rule known TO equity courts vas
Orn of some emergency TO meet sonIe
ew conditions, and was therefore in it's
ime without a precedent II based on
ound principles and benefcent results
ollowing their enforcement. affording
ecessary relation to the one party with
ut imposing illegal burdens on the other
ew remedies and unprecedented orders
re not unwelcome aids TO the chancellor
D meet the constantly varying demands
Or equitable relief.
AS hereinbefore intimated the duties Of
n employe Of public corporation are
Ich that he cannot always choose his
wn time for quitting that service.
The parties now charged with contempt
lust be tried on the facts as they have
cen made to appear; and having fully
Dnsi1ered them. l conclude that Engi-
GERS Clark, Case. Rutger and Contred
nd their fremen. as named. quit the
,rvice OF the Lake Shore and Michigan
outhern railroad under circumstances in
hich they had right to do so. and
lat they are not therefore In contempt |
court because of such conduct, and
icy will be discharged.
In reaching this conclusion have treat
these cases as criminal In character. |
nd had given the accused the benefit OF |
doubt, especially as TO the | I
IN " 10 | !