Rock Island daily Argus. (Rock Island, Ill.) 1886-1893, 1893-04-04
LAW FOR WORKMEN
As 1t Is Interpreted by Judges
Kicks and Taft.
THE BOYCOTT DECLARED ILLEGAL.


to Combine to Injure Others or Force
Violation of Statute-Substance of Two
Important DecIsions-Arthur Enjoined,
but All the Other Men Acquitted Except
One-Reasons for This sAction-Opinions
OF Labor Leaders.
TOLEDO, O., April 4-Yesterday morn
ing in the United States circuit court
Judge Kicks rendered his own decision in
the case of the Lake Shore engineers and
firemen who refused to handle Ann Arbor
freight, and read Judge Taft's decision in
the injunction case of the Ann Arbor rail-
road, wherein an injunction is
asked against Chief Arthur, of the
Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers,
restraining him from issuing,
promulgating or continuing in force any
rule of the brotherhood which shall require
or command any employees of the various
connecting lines to boycott the Ann Arbor
road.
Statement of the Case.
In substance the decision in the latter
case is as follows: A temporary restrain
ing order was issued by Judge Taft
against Chief Arthur. A hearing has
since been had and the question now is
whether on the evidence produced the or
der shall be continued in force until the
final decision in the case. 1t is charged
that Arthur, as chief of the brotherhood,
exercises controlling influence upon its
members in all matters and that one of its
rules requires all its members in the en-
ploy of any railway company, whenever
an order to that effect shall be given by
said chief officer, to refuse to receive,
handle or carry cars of freight from any
other railroad company whose employees,
members of the said association. have
engaged in a strike.
The Law in the Matter.
It is also charged that this rule is in di-
rect contravention of the interstate COM
merce law. The judge then says: "The
bill invokes the chancery powers of this
court to protect the complainant in righ is
which it claims under the act OF congress
passed Feb. 4, 1887, known as the inter
state commerce act and an act amending
It passed March 9, 1859. These acts were
passed by congress in the exercise of the
power conferred on it by the federal con-
stitution, to regulate commerce with for
eign nations, among the several states and
with the Indian tribes Counsel for de-
fendant, Arthur, contend that the inter
state 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 case of fed
eral jurisdiction"
Fixing the Trouble on Arthur.
Judge Taft then outlines the organiza-
tion and objects of the brotherhood and
says that the grand chief has large judicial
and executive powers. He is the ultimate
authority always called in to adjust differ
ences between members and their employ
ers. and he is one to whom appeals are
made to settle disputes arising between
members and subdivisions. He is also the
head of the insurance company. Judge
Taft then runs over the happenings during
the strike, stating that Arthur sent tele-
grams to eleven chairnen of the general
adjustment committees on as many differ
ent railroads notifying them that legal
strike was on and TO obey the laws of the
brotherhood.
Definition of a Legal Strike.
The judge then says: "a legal strike,
in brotherhood parlance, means one
consented to by the grand chief.
His consent is necessary under the rules of
the order to enable the men, thus out of
employment, to the three months pay al
lowed to striking members. Arthur ad
mits that the particular law to which he
referred in his dispatch was one adopted
by the brotherhood at Denver three years
ago, but which is not published in the
printed copy of the constitution and by
laws" He then quotes rule II, and says
that the violation of obligation by an en-
l
member can be guilty. He declares that
this rule makes the brotherhood con-
spiracy against the laws of the country.
The Interstate Commerce Law.
"Section 10 of the interstate commerce
law is then quoted. 1t involves in misde
meanor not only the officials of the COM
pany-who shall omit to do or refused to
do or permit anything to interfere with
acts necessary to the forwarding of freight
- -hrrto or,y for V,vatn nx-oI
by the company. The judge says on this
point: "Under this section it will be seen
| that the engineers of the defendant COM
panies, refusing to handle interstate
freight of complainant, are guilty of a
| misdemeanor and subject to criminal
prosecution
How He Works in the Chief.
Section 10 il terms subjects to punish
| ment only the common carrier company
and its employees, but it is quite clear that
| any one, though neither a common carrier
nor an employe, aiding or abetting or pro-
curing the common carrier or its employees
| to violate the section, would be punishable
under it as principal. All persons COM
| bining to carry out rule 12 of the brother
hood against the complainant company, if
any one of them does an act in furtherance
of the combination, are punishable under
| the foregoing section. This is true, because,
as already shown, the object of the con-
| spiracy is to induce, procure and compel
defendant companies and their employees
| to refuse equal facilities to the complainant
| company for the interchange of interstate
freight.
wiIlful, Wrongful and Criminal.
"In closing allusion should be made to
that part of the original restraining order
| herein which compelled Arthur to rescind
| the direction he had already given for the
enforcement of rule II. There was abso-