The Durham daily globe. (Durham, N.C.) 1889-1894, 1893-03-27
THE RIGHTS OF EMPLOYEES.

THE RIGHTS OF
There are phases of the judicial pro.
ceedings in the case of the railroads and
locomotive engineers at Toledo, o. for
which it appears there are no p~recedents.
JUSTICE BROWN of the supreme court of
the United States is quoted as saying
that he did not think there exists any
precedent by which the legality of the
action of JUDGES TAFT and KICKS could
be ascertained. He thought the point
raised an entirely new one. JUDGE
CLEMENTS of the interstate commerce
commission characterized the action Of
JUDGE KICKS in placing men in custody
for throwing up their situations as re.
m~arkable, and expressed the opinion that
there is no precedent for the judges.
Another member of the commission,
JUDGE VeAzEY, could think Of no law
bearing directly upon the points at issue,
though he thought the federal judges
may nave found sufficient authority fol-
their action in the interstate commerce
law. II do not hold that employees of
railroads or other corporations,' said
JUDGE VEAZEY, "have no right to cease
work or resign their positions, but the
law contemplates that they do it in a
reasonable manner, so as not to violate
any of the avs which might apply to the
protection of life or property"
It must be obvious to everybody who
can take an impartial and unprejudiced
view of the matter that if courts can say
under what conditions and circumstan-
ces the employees of railroad companies
may not quit such service they have
equally the right to impose restrictions
upon the companies in the matter of dis
charging employees. The courts cannot
do justice and make any discrimination.
The remark addressed by JUDGE KICKS
to the engineers and firemen who had
left their employment do not imply any
obligations on the part of the corpora
tons toward their employees, and it is
this one-sided aspect of the case-though
it should De said that the remarks of
JUDGE KICKS were altogether admoni-
.tory-which has been the chief cause of
criticism of the courts action. The
right of employees to quit the SER
vices of their employer was not denied,
but they must do so at a time and place
and under circumstances that would not
involve damage to the employer or in
jury to the public. If this be admitted
it is clearly necessary to maintain also
that railroad companies may not dis
charge employees except under conditions
and circumstances that will not work
injustice to the employees and jeopardize
the interests of the public. Only in
this way can equity be secured. 1t must
contention of the attorneys for the en-
gineers and iremen that the law does
not require the private citizen to continue
in any vocation. His labor is his capital
and he may dispose of it at his pleasure.
He may not interfere with the labor of
others, but his own right to stop work
when be pleases is not questionable.
This issue is sure to bring prominently
before the public mind the question Of
such government control and regulation
both of the corporations and their en-
ployes as will prevent conflicts that in
tlict injury upon the public. Legislation
is needed that will compel those engaged
in a service of a public character to sub
ordinate private considerations to the
public interests.