The Abbeville press and banner. [volume] (Abbeville, S.C.) 1869-1924, 1893-04-19
LASOR'S LIMIT IN STRIKES.
Judges Taft and Kicks on the
Ann ArbOr Cases.
Engineers May Strike but Must
Not Desert a Train.

IN an opinion handed down by Judge
Kicks in the United States Circuit Court,
in Toledo, Ohio, it is held that the United
Brotherhood Of Locomotive Engineers were
conspirators in their refusal to handle Ann
Arbor freight. Judge Taft decides that
the whole Brotherhood is conspiracy
against the law Of the country, and that, in
asmuch as Arthur gave the orders that pre-.
cipitated the boycott, an order for tempo
rary Injunction against Arthur as prayed
for should be allowed.
The court room was crowded. Judge
Ricks's decision in the cases Of the eight en-
gineers and fremen arranged for contempt
OF court was first delivered amid breathless
attention. It was not as radical as the men
feared, and does not assume to compel men
to work against their will.
The second decision which was written by
Judge Taft, grants the injunction prayed
for, and declares that If the members OF the
Brotherhood, in obedience to rule IL, boy
colt freight, they "becoms guilty OF Grim =
inal conspiracy against their country"
This decision is regarded by all leaders OF
organized Labor as the most important ever
rendered. They say that if sustained it will
choke all such bodies to death, and regard
this as crisis involving the existence Of La
Dor organizations.
The substance Of the decision OF Judge
Taft in the injunction case is as follows:
A temporary restraining order was issued
by me against Arthur. A. hearing has since
been had, and the question now 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 companies. An amendment was
atterward filed making TWO new defendants,
P. M. Arthur and F. P. Sargent. Sargent
was subsequently discharged as he was
a nonresident Of the district. AS to
Arthur, the amendment charges that he,
as Chief Of the Brotherhood, exercises
q controlling influence upon its members
in all matters, and that one OF its rules
requires all of its members In the en-
ploy of any railway company whsnever an
order to that effect shall be given BY its
said chief officer, to refuse to receive. han
die or carry cars of freight from any other
railway company whose employees are MEM
berg Of said association. and who have
engaged in a strike, such as the strike which
has been declared against the complainant
by the members Of the Brotherhood
with Arthur's consent and approval;
that Arthur now publicly announces
that unless complainant shalt submit to the
demands Of its striking employees, he will
order the rule above stated enforced; that
the rule is In direct contravention Of the In
terstate Commerce law, and Is intended to
induce the employees Of the different COM
panies to violats that law aud the previous
order Of this court; and that Arthur, with
others, is conspiring to that end.
The jurisdiction OF this court to hear and
decide the case made by the bill cannot be
f6o ~ 40 HiuaHaa
citizenship of parties. II it exists 1t must
arise from the subject matter Of the suit.
The bill invokes the chancery powers OF
this court to protect the COM
plainant in rights which it claims un-
der the act Of Congress passed February 4,
1887, known as the Interstate Commerce
act, and an act amending it passed March
2, 1889. These acts were passed by Congress
In the exercise OF power conferred on it by
the Federal Constitution ''eo regulate COM
merce with foreign Nations, anong the
several States, and with the Indian tribes. |"
Counsel for defendant, Arthur, contend
that the Interstate Commerce law and Its
amendments are only declaratory. OF the
complainant, and that therefore this Is not
a case Of Federal jurisdiction. The or1gina!
jurisdiction of this court extends by act OF
Congress, passed August II, 1888, 70 All
suits of a civil nature. at common law or In
equity, where the matter in dispute exceeds.
exclusive of interest and costs, the sum or
value of $4,000 and arising under the Constl'
tuition or laws OF the United States"
The billmakes the necessary averment as
to the amount in dispute. It is immaseriai
what rights the complainant would have
had before the passage OF the Interstate
Commerce law. It is sufficient that Con.
oress. In the constitutional eIarcise OF
power, has given the positive sanction OF
the Federal law to the rights.