The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1893-04-04

complete organization 10 maintained Ior the
its rules are well adapted to establishing and
carrying out general and local plans with re-
s' Sers. Submission to these plans where adopted
by the requisite vote Is required OF every mem-
ber on penalty Of expulsion. The management
Immediately with chairman of standing gen.
eral adjustment committee, for the particular
railway system involved and afferward with
the grand chief. The grand chief has large
judicial and executive powers. He Is the ulti-
mate authority always called In TO ADJUST dif-
ferences between members and their employer,
and he is the one to whom appeals are made 10
settle disputes arising between members ana
subdivisions. He is also the head OF the In
Early last month the superintendent of the
complainant company refused TO grant de-
mand by its engineers for higher wages. After
some unsuccessful attempts at negotiation.
Arthur, who had been called in consented to the
strike which had previously been voted by two
thirds of the brotherhood men in complainants
employ. AS soon Bs the men went out on March
z. Arthur sent to eleven chairmen of the general
adjustment committees on as many different
railroad systems in Ohio and the neighboring
States the following dispatch:
'i here is a legal strike In fOrce upon the
Toledo. Ann Arbor North Michigan railroad.
See that the men on your road comply with the
laws OF the brotherhood Notify your general
manager"
one consented to by the grand chief. HIS con-
sent is necessary under the rules OF the order 10
entitle the men thus out of employment TO the
Arthur admits that the particular law to which
he referred in this dispatch was one adopted by
the brotherhood at Denver three years ago. but
which Is now published in the printed copy or
the constitution and bylaws. II Is as follows:
"Twelfth-That hereafter when an issue has
been sustained by the grand chief and carried
into effect By the Brotherhood OF Locomotive
Engineers it shall be recognized n violation
OF obligation fSr member OF the Brotherhood
or Locomotive Engineers Association who may
be employed on O railroad running in connection
with or adjacent TO said railroad to handle the
property belonging to said railroad or system in
any way that may benefit said company in which
the Brotherhood OF Locomotive Engineers il at
issue the grievance or issue, OF whatever nature,
to be continued until amicably settled"
latiOn OF obligation" Is the highest oHense OF
which member can be guilty. and merits ex-
On the 18th of March the temporary restrain
Ing order issued by me was served on Arthur.
He was therein commanded to rescind any order
he might have promulgated to engineers on con-
Meeting lines to refuse TO handle complainants
freight. Under advice Of counsel he obeyed and
sent dispatch to thescommittee chairmen re-
scinding his previous dispatch of March 16. This
had the effect to lift the "embargo" so-called.
THE OBJECT OF RULE II
The result of this evidence is that the members
of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers
have, by the adoption Of Rule II. made anagree-
ment among themselves that whenever any Of
their comrades, with the consent OF Arthur,
leave the employ of one company because the
terms of employment unsatisfactory. the
members employed by companies operating con
Meeting lines will infict an injury Oh the first
company by preventing, as far as possible, the
first company from doing any business as CON-
mon carrier involving the interchange of freight
with connecting lines.
1t will be convenient in discussing the ques-
tion whether any relief can properly be given to
complainant against Arthur TO consider rule No.
II and the acts done or TO be done in pursuance
thereof first, in the light Of the criminal law;
second with reference TO the character as civil
Us w N rR
dies which court VI equity may afford against
them.
First-The complainant and defendant COM
panies are common carriers, subject to the pro-
visions of the interstate-cOmmerce act, and the
business exchanged between them is averred by
the bill to be nearly all Interstate freight The
second paragraph of the third section of the act
provides that "All common carriers subject to
the provisions of this act shall. according to
their respective powers. afford all reasonable,
proper and equal facilities for the interchange of
traffic between their respective lines and for the
receiving, forwarding and delivery OF passengers
and property to and from their several lines and
those connecting Herewith, and shall not dis
criminate IN rates and charges between such
connecting lines"
Section 10 of the act as amended provides that
"any common carrier subject 80 the provisions
of this act, whenever such common carrier Is a
corporation, any director or officer thereof, or
any receiver, trustee OF lessee. agent or person
acting for or employed by such corporation. who
aepsen sn fH
fail to do any act matter or thing in this act re-
quired to be done. or shall cause or willingly
suffer or permit any act, matter or thing so di-
rected or required by this act to De done, not 10
be so done, or shall aid or abet such omissions or
failure, shall be deemed guilty OF a
misdemeanOr, and shall, upon conviction there
of in any district court of the United States
within the Jurisdiction of which said offense was
committed, be subjected to line not to exceed
$780," ~
Under this section it win be that the
engineers of the defendant companies refusing to
handle interstate freight Of complainant are
guilty of misdemeanor, and subject to criminal
prosecution. Section 10, In terms, subjects to
punishment only the common carrier company
and its employees, but it is quite plain that any
one. though neither a common carrier nor an
employe, aiding or abetting or procuring the
section would be punishable under it as q prin-
clpal. 1t is, therefore, evident that Arthur and
the other members OF the brotherhood. If sue
or the defendant companies to refuse TO handle
interstate freight from complainant company;
would be guilty of violating Section 10, and
punishable as principals Hereunder.
Section 5a4O. K; s., provides that IF two or
more persons consplre to commit any
one or more parties do any act to effect the OBJ
ject OF the conspiracy all the parties to such
spiracy shall be liable to q penalty OF not more
than $4,000 or TO Imprisonment for not more
than two years. to both fine and imprison-
ment in the discretion Of the court"
ALL ARE PUNISHABLE.
All persons combining to carry out Rule 10 of
the brotherhood against the complainant COM
pany, If any one Of them does an act in further
ance OF the combination, punishable under the
foregoing section. This is true. because. as
already shown, the object OF the conspiracy is TO
induce, procure and compel the defendant COM
panies and their employees to refuse equal facilI-
ties to the complainant company for the inter-
change OF interstate freight which. as we have
seen, Is an offense against the United States by
virtue of Section 10, above quoted.
For Arthur TO send TO the committee chairmen
to direct the men to refuse to handle interstate
freight or complainant and TO notify the defend
ant companies, with the intention of procuring
them to do so, all In the execution of Rule II,
is act in furtherance OF the conspiracy TO pro-
cure the defendant companies to commit a crime
and subjects him and all cOnspiring with him to
the penalties OF Section $40, r. s. Again, for
the men in furtherance OF Rule IL either 10 re-
fuse to handle the freight, threaten 10 quit,
actually to quit, in order to procure or induce
the defendant companies to violate the penal
section OF the interstate commerce law, would
constitute acts in furtherance of the conspiracy,
which would render them also liable to the PEN
atty OF the same section.
Herein is found the difference between the act
Of employees of the complainant company in
combining TO withhold the benefit or their labor
from it and the act OF the employees OF the de-
fendant companies in combining to withhold
their labor from them-that Is, the difference be-
tween a strike and boycott. The one combina-
ton, so far as its character was shown in the
evidence was lawful because Ii was for the pur-
pose OF selling the labor Of those engaged In it
for the highest price ob;afnable and on the best
terms. The probable Inconvenience or loss
which its employees might impose on the COM
plainant company. by withholding their labor,
would, under ordinary circumstances, be a legit
innate means available to them for inducing q
compliance with their demands. But the en-
ployes of defendant companies are not dissatis-
A. &l~,-