New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1893-04-14
THE ElILRolDs AND THE COURTS

II is n curious fact that after many years OIL
contr vcrsy and conflict between railroad com
panics and their employees. with comparatively
| little Improvement in their mutual relation, or
prospect of relief for the public from the evils
thus inflicted. several decisions Of United states
urt, within tho space OF a few weeks should
have set the whole subject of rights ana obli-
cations in a clearer light than il was ever seen
in before. and have authOritaiiycy pointed the
way 10 q pcaccablc and convenient basis for
the adjustment Of future disputes. The orders
Of Judge, Taft and Riclis in the Ann Arb0r
cases were interpreted NJ first aS blow M
organized labor. \ NOR, careful consideration
of them has in great measure di>pcllcd that
mi>apprchcnsion. The gi>t of those decisions
is that a combination u prevent railroad com
rany from doing that which the law commands
il To do i, unlawful. The right OF individuals
10 leave the service OF railroad company was
not denied, though it was implied that they
could MT Withdraw at such "A tlmo and IN such
"A manner IL T. interrupt traffic. In point OF
fact some +, str;lint of individual liberty has
always been recognized in practice. as we have
already remarked: no engineer for example,
ever having abandoned his train under con
ditions which were morally certain 10 cause
disaster or storm of popular Indignation But
if this indefinite obligation was implied it was
IMPLIED also that those employees Of a railroad
who are commonl, called officers are under a
corresponding obligation and can be held to
an equally strict account.
On this mint the decision rendered last Sat
uiday by Judge Spccr, OF Georgia, upon the
petition Of the Brotherhood of Locomotive En-
cnccrs, is more explicit That organization
asked the Court to require the Receiver of the
Central Railroad of Georgia T. continue in force
the contract under which members of it were
working at tho time the Receiver was appoint
ed In this case, thc railroad being under the
supervision of the court there was no question
Of jurisdiction and authority. and Judge Hpccr
mon consideration Of all the advantages and
propictics fc't no embarrassment in granting
the petition and directing the renewal Of the
contract If he had stopped there his decision
would have been interesting, but its greatest
significance lies in tho broader principles which
he brought under review. lie did not hesitate
to declare that the recently famous Rule MI
of the brotherhood cnjoninG upon all mem
hers obedience to orders establishing a boy
colt sis in direct and positive violation Of the
eral, could hesitate for a moment to so declare
IT," I'm tho case Of the Georgia Central the
Court had received assurances OF strict compii-
ancc with its Judgment, and therefore, not
doubling that Rule XII would be annulcd in
practice, granted the petition. Judge Spccr
moreover. takes occasion 10 declare with special
emphasis his opinion that Rule MI is every
where obnoxious to the law, and that :" it will
BIO practically impossible hereafter for body
of men to combine 10 hinder and delay the
work of the transportation company inaSmuch
as 9" i'm any conceivable strike upon the trans
poltation lines OF this country, whether main
lines or branch roads, there will be Interference
with interstate or foreign commerce." s, init
mate, in the language OF the Court is the
interchange of commodities and it follows.
therefore that strike or boycott, aS it is pop-
ulary called, if ever effective, can be so no
longern Ii is worthy of notice also that in the
opinion Of Judge Spccr the same conclusion
holds good, for the same reasons, with refer
cnco TO strikes upon telegraph lines
This cnunciaiion Of what Judge Spccr can
cevcs the law to be, should not be understood
~ hostile To labor organizations, and in fact il
has not been so interpreted by their leaders.
On the contrary they have derived much salts
faction from the determination Of this impor- |
tant controversy in Gcorgia. They evidently
find in it strong warrant for the belief that il |
will be practicable hereafter to hId cmpo, crs
10 stricter accountability for the interruption
OF Traffic and the consequent violation OF public
rights And to discover this meaning they do |
not need ~ read between the lines. Inter