Fisherman & farmer. [volume] (Edenton, N.C.) 1887-19??, 1893-04-14
LABOR'S LIMIT In STRIKES.
Judges Taft AMI Kicks Oh the
Ann ArbOr Cases.
Engineers May Strike but Must
Not Desert a Train.

= In an opinion handel down by Judge
Kicks in the United States Circuit Court,
In Toledo, Ohio, it is held that the Unite
Brotherhood Of Locomotive Engineers vera
conspirators in their refusal to handle Ann
Arbor freight. Judge Taft decides that
the whole Brotherhood is a conspiracy
against the law Of the country, and that, in
asmucn as Arthur gave the orders that pre-
cipitated the boycott, an order for tempo
rary Injunction against Arthur prayed
for should be allowed.
The court room was crowded. Judge
Ricks's decision in the cases Of the eight en-
gineers and firemen arranged for contempt
of court was first delivered amid breathless
attention. It was not as radical as the men
feared, and does not assume to compel men
to work against their will.
The second decision which was written by
Judge Taft, grants the in junction prayed
for, and declares that if the members of the
Brotherhood, in obedience to rule IL, boy
colt freight, they ''become guilty of Grim
inal conspiracy against their country"
This decision is regarded by all leaders Of
organized Labor as the most important ever
rendered. They say that if sustained it will
choke all such bodies to death. and regard
this as a crisis involving the existence of La
Dor organ cations.
The substance of the decision OF Judge
Taft in the injunction case is as follows:
A temporary restraining order was issued
by me against Arthur A hearing has snca
been had, and the question now Is whether
on the evidence produced the order shall be
continued in force until tie final decision in
the case.
The original bill was filed against eight
railway companies. An amendment was
afterward filed making two new defendants,
P. M. Arthur and F. P. Sargent. Sargent
was subsequently, discharged as he was
a nonresident of the district. AS to
Arthur, the amendment charges that he,
as Chief of the Brotherhood, exercises
a controlling influence upon its members
in all matters, and that one of its rules
requires all of its members in the en-
ploy of any railway company whenever an
order to that effect shall be given by its
said chief officer to refuse to receive, ham
die or carry cars Of freight from any other
railway company whose employees are mem
bers of said association. and who have
engaged in strike, such as the strike which
has been declared against the complainant
by the members OF the Brotherhood
with Arthur's consent and approval;
that Arthur now publicly announces
that unless complainant shall submit to the
demands Of its striking employees, he will
order the rule above stated enforced; that
Che rule is in direct contravention of the In
terstate Commerce law, and is intended to
induce the employees OF the different COM
panies to violate that law and the previous
order Of this court; and that Arthur, with
others, Is conSplr1ng TO CnaU enQ.
The jurisdiction OF this court to hear and
decide the case made by the bill cannot be
maintained On the ground Of the diverse
citizenship of parties. If it exists 1t must
arise from the SUBJ ect matter Of the suit
The bill invokes the chancery powers of
this court to protect the COM
plainant in rights which it claims
der the act of Congress passed February 4,
1887, known as the Interstate Commerce
act, and an act amending it passed March
9, 1889. These acts were passed by Congress
in the exercise Of power conferred on it by
the Federal Constitution ito regulate com.
merce with foreign Nations, among the
several States and with the Indian tribes"
Counsel for defendant, Arthur, contend
that the Interstate Commerce law and its
amendments are only declaratory of the
common law which gave the same rights to
complainant, and that therefore this is not
a case of Federal jurisdiction. The original
jurisdiction of this court extends by act of
Congress, passed August II, 1888, to "alI
suits of civil nature, at common law or in
equity, where the matter in dispute exceeds,
exclusive of interest and costs, the sum or
value of $4,000 and arising under the Constl-
tuition or laws of the United States"
The bill makes the necessary averment as
to the amount in dispute. 1t is immaterial
what rights the complainant would have
had before the passage of the Interstate
Commerce law. It is sufficient that Con-
gress, in the constitutional exercise OF
power, has given the positive sanction Of
the Federal law to the rights