The World. [volume] (Martinsburg, W. Va.) 1891-1896, 1893-04-04
Judge KICKS DECISION.
Engineer Linnon Found Guilty d
Contempt.
THE RIGHTS OF a CARRIER
ST Fsr.h ~ The Jadge 0$esgs and Rmployss Ars
Alike Amesable Unaer The fntar-ssssa
Commerce Law.

TotEno. O.. April AJudge Ricks
-endered his decision ia the United
States court Monday morning in the
sasc Of the Lake Shore engineers who,
loheying the laws ~ tile Brotherhood 81
4 locomotive engineers. refused To handle
Ann Arbor freight. is there was
tstrilSe on that road
The court held that Engineer Linnon.
nasmuch as he bad been twice ordered
20 move the cars By the officials 81 the
company, and did not do SO until or
Tered to by brotherhood officers after
he boycott was raised. was guilty u
contempt Of cnurt The seven other
men were discharged.
i Amid brenthless silence and in the
presence Of railway officials and specta-
-ors Judge Kicks first read his own de-
sision in the case Of the eight engineers
4 and tireInen arraigned for contempt II
was not as radical as the men feared.
i and does not assume to compel men TO
work against their will Still the deci-
sion wasN far-reachirg and notice Of
appeal was at once given by Mr.. Hurd
Judge Kicks decision IS as follows:
| The suit was Instituted BY the Toledo Ann
Arbor and North Miehignnrail company 20
Compel The Lake shore 3 Michigan Southern
abroad, the Pennsylvania company and other
defendants 10 receive from IL and deliver 70 II
freight ard cars destined from one state 70 an
i 1ther, commonly known Us Interstate freight
/ The bill was drawn ID force the third section Of
i u the Interstate commerce act whichproyides:
THAT II shall hcpnaMful for any common car
sier subject to the royisens 81 this Act 70 make
or give any undue unreasonable preference
\ 1r advantage 70 ans Particular person, com
| pany, firm. corporation locality, or any par
Eicu7ar description Of traffic, IN any respect
whatsoever or to subject any particular person
company, firm, corporation or locality, or any
particular Description of tranlc, II amy undue
Or unreasonable prejudice Oh disadvantage in
any respect whatsoever
Tie common carriers subject to the proyis-
| ons Of ihatuct are defined BY the statute to be-
any common carrier or carriers engaged IN
the transportation OF passengers or property
wholly by railroad, or partly BY railroad and
partly BY water, when both are used under
sommon control management. or arrangement,
4 Tor continuous carriage Or shipment from
one state or territory Of the United States or
| The District Of Columbia 70 any other state or
| territory OF the United States "
| The subject matterof this litigation is there.
sore the construction and enforcement Of an act
~ congress, and The court acquires jurisdiction
because o. the federal question involved. That
\ such question Is involved, think too plain for
tutc case for cognizanco BY federal court IL
| 1 involves but single ingredient or question
dependent on the constitution or law or q
treaty OF the United States although IL may at
/ the same time involve any other questions that
depend on the general principles Of law. Chief
Justice Marshall, in Osborn vs.. u. S. bank
Wheaton, 1888, considered this point, and came
\ TO the following conclusion sNNe think, thcn,
4 that when q question 10 which the judicial
\ power Of the union Is extended BY the consttu
4 Han .f
/ II Is In tho power OF congress to give circuit
courts jurisdiction OF that cause, although other
1 questions OF fact or law may be involved in H. =
/ Remedies OF similar nature might undoubt-
i edly be invoked under the statutes and the
common law, but the act In question affords the
| broadest, most effective relief, and the juFis-
fiction is therefore safely grounded upon that
| aw.
Upon the Ming Of this bin on the eleventh
\ lay OF March, and upon application Of the com
/ claimant TO me at the chambers IN Cleveland, a
/ mandatory injunction was allowed directed 10
| the defendants, their agents, officers servants,
1 and employees, and 1t was therein ordered that
the said defendants, Alberto. Blair, Jacob s
Morris. The Pennsylvania company, tho
Wheeling and Lake Erie company, The Lake
shore and Michigan Southern Railway conn
4 pany, the Michigan Central Railroad company
the Cincinnati, Hamilton and Dayton Railroad
| company, the Columbus, Hooking Valley and
Toledo Railway company, the Toledo and Ohio 4
Central Railway company, the Cincinnati
1 Jackson and Maclxinaw Railway company
and each Of them and their oficers
agents servants and employees, be and they are
hereby enjoined and restrained from refusing
/ to offer and extend to said, the Toledo, Ann Ar
Dor & North Michigan Railroad Co, the same
/ equal facilities for interchange 81 iraffic on I'M
1 ter-stat business between said railway COM
/ panies as are enjoyed by other railway com
panies and from refusing 10 receive from said
/ the Toledo. Ann Arbor a North Michigan Rail
way O. cars billed from points In one state TO
points in another state which may be offered TO
/ said defendant companies the complainant, and
from refusing to deliver In like manner 10 said
\ complainant cars which maybe billed over said
compla:nanis line, from points in one state 10
points In other states, which may he offered ID
| said defendant companies by the complainant:
/ and from refusing to deliver Ia like manner X
1 said complainant Ears whieh may be billed over
! compliments line from points IN one state X
points ia other states
ordered that q writ OF injunction DO issued
put OF and under the seal Of this court as prayed
tor In the bill Of complaint, 70 remain IN fores
until the further ord ~ OF cour herein.
The application for this order was made X
me at Chambers, in cleveland, late on saturday
night March III The situation set 0ns In fht
bill disclosed an emergency u which prompi
action was necessary. had granted i similar
mandatory order ia ispi on a hill for an infhnc
ton filed in this court by the Wheeling s. Lake
Erie railroads, ard II wss enforced with benen
cent results as against is engineers, nrcmer
and trainuicn, who had refused - han lle inter
state commerce freight loaded Oh cars con
signed 10 various ports on l-ates superior an
Michigan The bill in this case clearly entities
the complainant 10 relief S anainst tho defend
ant railroads, who were threatening 70 rcfust
TO receive or deliver Interstate srrlRht
The seetioncf the int rssafe commerce Law
above quoted made II mandatory upon connect
ing railroads TO receive and deliver bassengcri
and freight and b afford EQUAL facilities Tor tht
interchange u tranie- Corporations can "a,
only through their ofieers, agents and servants
80 thatthe mandatory provisions % tho law
which apply TO the corporation apply tth cdtial
force 10 Its ofncers and employees 1heAauthor
ity Of the court 10 issue such an order has been
questioned, but il rests On welt-estabiishod
principles. ia Bpafle vs. Perry, r. n 5 "a. 46A
q mandatory injunction was grained Oh motion
BY Sir John tewart, w C.s
Thousands visit bismarck.
BERLIN, April 4-rMore than four
thousand men took advantage Of the
magnificent weather tovisit Friedrichs.
- C4,rIay II, f1sa ,,,x,,.., ), y. |