The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1893-03-25
JUDGE RICKS'S DECISION.

The wide discussion caused by the
ruling of United States District Judge
Kicks in the Ann Arbor railroad boycott
case shows how closely interviewer are
the relative interests of capital and Ia
Dor, of corporations and the public.
Modern society is 80 highly organized
that any interference with or Interrupt
ton of these relations is felt in many di-
rections and by diverse interests. Here
in is found the strongest reason why
these relations should be established on
permanent basis of good understand
ing and friendly CO. operation.
Judge Ricks's ruling was based on the
well-recognized principle that, as a COM
mon carrier. railroad company is re-
CURED to carry all freight that offers,
without distinction or discrimination.
Carrying this principle further. he holds
that the employees of railroad are under
the same obligation to handle all
freight offered as is the company, and
that under the interstate-commerce law
freight once started to its destination
must be carried through. In accordance
with this view Judge Kicks issued an
order directed to all railway companies,
their officers, agents and employees, re-
straining them from refusing to handle
the cars of the Toledo, Ann Arbor g.
North Michigan railroad. The order
was intended to break a boycott which
the employees of another railroad had
established against the one above
named by refusing to handle it's cars,
and when the employees continued their
refusal they were arrested ON a charge
of contempt of court.
1t will be seen that udge Kicks holds
in effect that the doctrine which makes
railroad companies answerable to the
public as common carriers and requires
them to treat all freights alike. applies
equally to all railroad employees. The
law says TO every railroad company,
"YOu must not discriminate be-
tween shippers. handling one per-
sons freights and refusing to handle
another's." Undoubtedly that is the
law as to railroads; the novelty of Judge
Ricks's decision is in holding that the
same principle applies to railroad en-
ployes. The Journal is of opinion that
the fallacy of this ruling is in not dis
tinguishing between two different rela-
tions and sets of obligations. Railroad
companies are common carriers, but their
employees are not. Tho latter do not oc-
cupy the same relations to the public
that the former do, and are not under
the same obligations. Railroad en-
ployes owe certain duties to their en-
ployers. failing to perform which they
may be discharged, but they do not owe
any special duty to the public more than
other citizens. The principle of law
which prohibits common carriers from
discriminating against any class of
freights applies to corporations, not to
individuals. If the officers of q railroad
company make such discrimination they
IRE responsible to the public. but if their
employees attempt to make such discrim-
ination they are responsible to the CON-
pany. The company can be compelled
by law to perform it's duty to the public
under penalty of damages; the en-
ployes can be required 10 perform their
duty to the company under pain of dis
missal from its employ.
The logical effect of Judge Rlcks's
decision was that the employees of
railroad company had no choice but to
move all cars and handle all freights
alike, and that To rofuse to handle any
oh
jobs rather than do it, would be pun
ishable offense under the general prin-
ciple of law above referred to. This is
resented by the labor organizations as
an infringement Of personal rights and
liberty, and there seems to be much
reason for this view. 1t is pushing the
doctrine of the responsibility of rail
roads to the public very far to say that
it prohibits a private individual fromre-
fusing TO do any work that may be dis
tasteful to him and from quitting
work whenever. or for whatever
cause, he may see fit. Judge
Kicks is reported as having ex-
planned his decision by saying that
"while the law does not require railroad
employees to work for any company they
may not see fit to, it requires that when
they shall decide to relinquish such en-
ployment they shall do it so as not to
bring about any damage to their en-
ployers.r With due Difference to the
court the Journal does not believe that
the law requires any such thing. A
railroad employe may quit work when
ever he pleases. barring n contract to
the contrary. In the absence of a con-
tract he may quit work at any hour of
any day, without regard to the interests
of the company. He is not obliRe to
consider whether his quitting will do
the company much or little damage.
He has nothing to do with the COM
pany's relations to the public and can
not be held to any respon sibility rs to
the time or manner of his quitting
work. Outside of an express contract
or conviction for crime there can be no
compulsory labor in this country.
The correlative right of every man to
! quit work when he pleases is the right