The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1893-04-04
be claimed for their term of service under the


On the afternoon and night of the 18th of
March train OF cars was made up in the yards
Of the Lake shore railroad at the Air Line
p. NJ. .fengineer Clark and fireman Thompson
were called to make the run. They prepared
their engine. ran IL into the yard and backed
down 10 within a half-car length OF the train
and before coupling IL learned that the first
seven cars were billed for Alexis and intended
took his clothes fIom @ his box, amounted to an
officer OF the company that he would quit its
service and, proceeding to the ofhce. turned over
his book OF rules to the officer In charge. call
was then sent ont for engineer Case and fireman
Kossler They brought their engine to the train,
coupled 1t, and, on learning from the conductor
that seven were to be delivered at Alexis.
Case said he would quit the service and did SO.
call was then sent out for engineer Rutger and
out and coupled to the train. When Rntger
learned that Alexis cars were TO be delivered
he quit his employment and left the yard. hav-
ing turned over his book OF rules. A call was
then sent out for engineer Conley and fireman
Westgate, whose engine was in the same way
coupled to the train. Conley declined to haul
the Alexis cars and quit the cOmpanys employ
ment He offered to run the train out If the OBJ
noxious cars were removed.
The parties now charged with contempt must
be tried on the facts as they have been made to
appear; and, having fully considered them, l
conclude that engineers Clark. Case. Rutger and
service of tha Lake shore road under circum-
stances when they had right to do so. and that
they are not, therefore, in contempt of court be-
charged '
Upon the facts of the case made against
engineer James Lennon / find that he did
not quit the service OF the company in fact.
AM did not intend to do so. and that his pre-
tense to do SO was a trick to evade
service of the company when he refused to
switch the Ann Arb0r into the train at Alexis.
and having then full knowledge OF the terms
was then in full force and commanded him to do
the very thing he refused to do. He, therefore,
deliberately and knowingly violated the man
date OF the court and was guilty Of contempt. L
accept the protestations of Mr.. Lennon. made
under oath, that he did not intend to disobey the
orders OF the court and did not believe be was
violating the laws of the United States. He is a
member of the Brotherhood OF Locomotive En-
gineers, and supposed that while acting under
its rules he was not arraying himself against the
laws of his country. This suit has afforded
the courts an opportunity for declaring the
laws applicable TO such emergencies. and the
public interests have been thereby subserved.
This does nos, therefore, seem to me to be the
occasion when IL would be wholesome or wise to
Ject OF the court Is TO uphold and vindicate the
laws, without. under these circumstances, show
ing disposition to Cypress or punish those who
have evidently been misled. With these views
ofmy duty, an order will be entered that the ac-
cused. James Lennon, stand adjudged guilty
OF contempt and pay a fine OF $50, and the costs
OF this proceeding. upon payment OF which he
Will DC discharged from the further orders OF
the court.
The orders made in this case to all the connect
ing roads and their employees who have continued
In the service still in full force, and it is but
just TO all concerned that the court should say
that the laws ana orders having now been fully
interpreted and made public, any violation there
OF that may hereafter be made Will be dealt with
In spirit and purpose quite different from that
which has controlled us In this case.
Judge Taft's Decision.
In the absence of Judge Taft. Judge
Ricks read the formers opinion In the in.
junction suit brought by the Toledo. Ann
Arbor q North Michigan Railway Com
pany against the Pennsylvania Company
and other com psnies, and in which Chief
Artb bur and Grand Master Sargent are made
joint defendants, which IS as follows:
This is motion by the complainant, the
Toledo. Ann Arbor e. North Michigan Railway
Company. for a temporary Injunction. to remain
pending this action, against Z. NJ. Arthur. chief
of the Brotherhood OF Locomotive Engineers.
and defendant herein, to restrain him from is
rule or order of said brotherhood which shall
command any employees OF any of de-
fendant railway companies to refuse TO
in course of transportation from one State to
cthes k.fhe complainant, from refusing to
rective and handle cars OF such freight which
also from in any way, directly or indirectly, en-
deavoring 10 persuade or induce any OF the en-
whose lines connect with the railroads of COM
plainant not TO extend to said company the
same facilities for interchanging of interstate
traffic are extended by said companies to other
railway companies temporary restraining
order to this effect was issued by me against Ar
thur parte. a hearing has since been had.
and the question now is whether, Oh the evil
dence produced, the order shall be continued in
force until the final decision of the case,
The original bill was filed against eight rail-
way companies and the superinrendents Of two
OF them, and averred that the defendants, who
were operating lines of railway connecting with
that OF the complainant at Toledo had threat
ened to refuse to receive interstate freight from
the complainant company on the ground that
their locomotive engineers who were members
of the brotherhood, would refuse to haul or
handle the same. because complainant employed
on its line engineers who were not members Of
that If the threat was carried out it would work
an lrreparable injury TO the complainant for
which damages could not be estimate and the
law could make no remedy. The prayer asked
an order enj0lning the defendant companies,
their employees and servants from refusing to re-
freight A temporary order, as prayed for, was
issued by Judge Ricks.
THE AMENDED BILL.
An amendment to the bill was afterwards filed
making two new defendants-P. NJ. Arthur and
+. p. Sargent. Sargent it subsequently ap-
peared, was a nonresident of the district, and
the bill as against him was dismissed for want Of
Jurisdiction As to Arthur the amendment
charges that he, chief of the brotherhood, ex-
ercises controlling influence upon it's members
in all matters treated by its rules and regula-
tions that one OF its rules requires all Its men,
berS In the employ or any railway company,
whenever an order to that effect shall be given
by its said chief officer, TO refuse TO receive
handle, or carry cars Of freight from any other
ia lway company whose employees, members OF
said association. have engaged In strike; that
suoh O strike has been declared against the COM
plainant by members OF the brotherhood, with
p. M. Arthur's consent; that Arthur now public
ly announces that unless complainant shall sub
NIT TO the demands of lis striking employees he
will order the rule above stated enforced; that
the rule Is in direct cOntravention OF the inter
state-commerce law, and is intended to induce
the employees OF the defendant companies to viO-
late that law and the previous order of this
court, and that Arthur, with others. is cOnspir-
ing TO that end.
The Jurisdiction of this court to hear and de-
eide the case and by the bill can be maintained
on the ground of the diverse citizenship OF the
parties If it exists it must arise from the sub
1ect-matter OF the suit The bill tnvOkeS the
chancery powers of this court to protect the COM
plainant In rights which it claims under the act
OF Congress known as the interstate-commerce
act, and an act amending II, passed March z.
1880. These acts Were passed by Congress IN
the exercise Of the power conferred upon 1t by
the federal Constitution. "To regulate commerce
with foreign nations among the several States
aud with the Indian tribes" Counsel for de-
fendant Arthur contend that the Interstate CON-
merce law and its amendments are only declar-
atory OF the common law. which gave the same
rights to complainant. and that. therefore, this Ia
not a case of federal jurisdiction. The original
jurisdiction OF this court extends, by act OF Con-
gress passed Aug s. 1883, to 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 900, and aris-
ing under the Constitutions or laws or the
United States.
The bill ma<es avermens