New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1893-04-04

(
employment. So appears those terms work o
mutual benefit employer and employed. Whit the en-.
rlOes propose do is to dpiye the defendant companies
of ihc benefit thus accrung from their labor uness
the companies will consent to do criminal and unlaw
injury to the complainant. Neither law morals
give the right TO labor withhold his hbor
for such purpose. Under the principle above stated
Arthur and members OF the brotherhood eng1ged in
causing to the complainant liable for actual
loss Inflicted In pursuance OF their conspiracy.
The Commerce law itself recognizes the duties
therein imposed be OF such character 10 warrant
remedy by enforced specific performance for In summary
equity proceedings, the instance OF the Interstate Com
merce Commission, provided by section 49, as amended
1885, express power issue nunctions, mandatory
otherwise prevent violations Of the orders OF tho
Commission Is given 10 Circuit Courts In addition to
that remedy by msndsmus In the District and Circuit
Courts expressly denomInatcd cumulative, is given to
interested person to compel compliance by common
carrier with the provisions OF the act.
closing ausion should be made TO that part OF the
original restraining order herein which compelled Arthur
rcscnd the direction he had already given for the en-
forccmcnt Of Rule IL. 1t mandatory I'm its ehlr-
actcr therefore unusual but preecdents in equity
abundantly justify It, There was absolutely no way oil
the status between the parties (which
is the proper Office OF a preliminary inunctlon) but by
compelling rescission Of Arhnrs act had its
effect allowed continue, future equitable feei
would have entirely futile The pr sent was an
The injury threatened was wlfui wrong
ful and criminal and mandate though not frequent
remedy necessary and could by no possibility under
the circumstances work injury any
The motion temporary injunction asainst o''
lendant Arthur is allowed a. prayed for
Judge Rickss decision in the case OF the eighc
engineers and firemen of the Lake Shore road VINO
had been arraigned for contempt OF Court, "as
delivered amid breathless attention Ii was not
as radical as the men had feared, and does hot
assume TO compel men to work against their WILL
The Court held that Engineer Lennon lnasnuch
"a he had been twice ordered by the officers OIL
the company to move cars. but did not move them
until ordered TO by the Brotherhood officers after
the boycott was raised, was guilty OF contcmpt
of court. The seven other men discharged
Notice Of appeal was at once given by Mr.. liurd.
Judge Ricks's decision is in part as follows
This suit was Instituted by Toledo Ann Arbor and
North Michigan Railway Company, to compl the Lake
shore and Michigan Southern Railrosd the Pennsylvania
Company defendants to receive from IL ana 10
deliver TO IL freight destined from on; State to
another commonly anown as Interstate freight Inc Dill
wa, enforce the third section OIL the A""rsoc
Commerce act, which provides
That It shall be unlawful for any common cariier
SUBJECT to the provisions OF this act to make or give
any undue unreasonable preference or Advantage !"
particular person. company, irn copora'oh UT ''
caiy, any particular description OF tramc' Ill any IT,
scct subject any particular Prso eoh
p.ny finn, corporation locality, or any particular ue
scrptlon OF nac undue or unreasonable pe'oace
or disadvantage In any respect whatsoever"
carriers subject the PROVISIONS Vi
act are defined by be ''ony common carrier
or carriers engaged transportation OF passengers
or property, wholly by railroad or pauy Dy ra"iosu
and partly by water, when both are used under coh
mon control management or arrangement for cou
tlnuous carriage or shipment from one State or Ierri
tov OF the United States District OF Columbia "
any other State or Territory Of the United States.
rbe subject matter OF this litigation L. therefore
the construction and enforcement OF an act OF 'onse
and the court acquires jurisdiction because OF ohe
r,de,.l ouc.,i n involved That such question Is
in, cd 1 think plain for serious controversy IL
/, sufficient constitute case Tor eosh@a"'o % ="
Federal Court II IL involves but single ihs,cuio"' VI
ouost,o, dependent on the Constitution or law or
,,c,,v of the United States although II may al inc
same time involve any other questions nat dcpeha on
tho general principles OF law Nhct justice marshall
g., Oshorn VS. United States Bank, Wheaton, 15s con-
.,dercd this point to the following conclusion
.we mink then that when question 10 whch the
judicial power OF Union extended by he Cons""o"
forms an ingredient Of the original case 10 j. III he P
Of Congress to give Circuit Courts jurisdiction ol 'h''
cause, although other questions vi i'o' VI '" "' ~ "
yOlycd In IT," ,, =, l.,
I,emedle, OF similar nature might uhdouo"uN oe II"
yokei under statutes and the common ID" ou' INC NV
in question affords boadc-t and most enecuNe e'ci
and the risdcton therefore safely grouhdo up'" ''
Law. ~ -, , ,,
Upon the filing Of this bill on the litn uay oi n'i'n' @
and upoa application OF the complainant W me' '' '
lie : in Cleveland a mandatory injunction was '''o"u'
directed to the defcndantS their agents officers servants
- ,,lovcs. and IL was therein ordered that the sad
defendants Albert q. Blair, Jacob - MOTIFS the lo
,yI,anla Company, the Wheeling ana Lake i''e , n's
,nmrony the Lake Shore and Mlchigah oo"h'r" i""'
Gam, any the Michigan Central Railroad company ,ho
,,n,,i t,uit n and DAYTON Railroad Company, the
columus Hooking Valley and Toledo Railway 'o"pan''
the Toledo ani Ohio Central Railway 'omp'"S' uo | ,
,inn,u Jack. on and Mackinaw Railway ,OhT''N al"
each n them and their onccr. agents, servants anu vi"
-, ,o aud ,bev are hcloby cnjonei and Ie>tiiihca
nam refusing to offer and extend TO said company 'o
Toledo Ann Arbor and North Michisah ha""'s '"is'
the .ame equal facilities for interchange oil ua"' o ~
rata business betw cen said railway companies a are en-
ov,d by other railway companies anu from refusing "
,oI,e f,ou said the Toledo. Ann Arbor ana Nor.n
Michigan Railway Company ears piu'u "oi' po
one state to points in another state "hV" navy )"
IN ait defendant companies by the complainant au iro
ofu.ine TO deliver In like manner u 'au cohpiain'"' "
which may be billed over ead complainant ihe lo"
points in one State to points In othef S'''c'' ,
ordercd That wit of injunction be issuea out oil a'
,r ,h. s, of this cour IL prayed for In the Dill o
complainant, to remain III Vi'N ""'' ''
the court herein. ,
The application for this ordef was maze 10 "' a. ' %
bcr. in Cleveland, late SATURDAY nsht Nafo" H. ~"
,,,I, 80, an, in tn, bill disclosed emergency In
,hlch prompt action necessary. hau srai'eu
similar mandatory order in ls?i, on Dill or 'n III
junction filed in this by the wheeling ana Lake
Erie Railroad and IL enforced WIN oeoe"' ic''
A. against its engineers, hrcimn anu 'fhn"" "'o "''
refused To handle commerce ireg oa1' III cars
consigned various port on Lake superior anu '"s"
The hin in this case clearly ened complainant 70 rce'
As against the defendant railroads VINO were '"'c's
to receive deliver Interstate ielght
The section OF the Interstate Commerce law ABOVE
ouod made il mandatory upon connecting railroads to
receive and deliver passengers and freight ana To anori
eo,al f,ce. for Interchange OF traffic Cor0fatiohs
can act only through their officers agents and servants
80 that the mandatory provisions Of the law which apply
t the corporation apply with equal force to It's officers
and employees The authority OF the court to issue such
an order has been questioned but IL rests on veilesab
Il.hed prime ples. Beadell Perry. l.. r.. Ea.
4G5 mandatory injunction granted on motion by Sir
Iohn Stewart Y. c. In giving Judgment In that ease
ne said; lei has been made To supposed rule
Of court that mandatory GIncons cannot properly be
made except at hearing Of the cause never heard
o such a rule
JUDGE RICKS'S DECISION.
Judge Rcks discussed at great length the right
If court of equity TO give decision IN the
pending case, and continued:
Now let Us apply thess general principles OF equity.
which are consistent with every rule OF natural law and
siicc to the facts OF this case far they affect
those charged with ont'mpt OF court. The EVIL
shows that according TO the rules and customs OF
company the engineers were paid s3 30 for run OF