The Bessemer indicator., 1894-10-06
JENKINS REVERSED.
RAILROAD EMPLOYEES MAY
STRIKE.
Justice Harlan Declares That Employees
of the Northern Pacific Have the right
to Quilt Individually or In IL iody. but
Have no Right to Conspirc or to Do
Damage to Property.


Have no Right to Con-piro or to Do
Damage to Property.
Chicago. Oct. LIN the United
States Court of Appeals to-day Judge
Harlan of the United States Supreme
Court, in an opinion regarding the
famous strike injunction of judge
Jenkins, rather severely handled the
latter. Judge Harlan held that Il
body of men had n right to quit, ire
spcctive of the discomfort which
might result, They had, however. no
right Ia conspire to do damage or to
einbarrass. He did not agree with
jenkins famous definition of II strike,
that it was necessarily Illegal
Judge Harlan held that there was
such Il thing as IL legal strike, Judge
Jenkins injunction was modified.
The opinion was rendered by Jus
tice Harlan of the supreme Court
and Judges Wood and Bum, the
bench was occupied to-day by Justice
Harlan and Judges Wood. Bum, jon
kins and GroSScup. Judge .lcn' ins
appeared undisturbed by the decision,
The decision in part revcrscs
the famous anti-strikc order
of Judge Jenkins and in part
sustains 1t. That part of the jenkins
injunction which restrained the ON
plpyes of the road from striking. or in
the language of the injunction, from
so quitting the service of the said ic-
ceivcr, with or without notice, rs to
cripple the property or prevent or lin
der the operation of the road, the
court of appeals declares to be N'o-
lation of the rights of employees, who
could moi legally he restrained from
leaving the employ of the receivers
and the company when they saw fit
to do so, whether they quit in II body
or individually.
That part of tie Injunction which
restrained the employees from entering
into Il combination or conspiracy 10
quit with the intention of crippling
the property and preventing the oper-
tion of the road is sustained. ON
the whole. the decision, which WIS
read by Justice Harlan, who presided
over the court. is Il clear recognition
of the right of the employees 10 strike.
The decision discussed the right of
employees to strike as follows: "The
general inhibition upon combinations
ana conspiracics formed with the OBJ
iect and intent of crippling the proper
ty and embarrassing the operation of
the railroad must he construed rs re
fci1ing only to acts of violence. intim-
idation and wrong. We do not inter
pret the words as above quoted as
embracing the ease of employees who.
being dissatisfied with the proposed
reduction OF their wages, merely with
draw on that account. simgly or by
concerted action. from the service of
the receivers. using neither force,
threats. persecution nor intimidation
toward employees who do not join
them, nor amy device TO mulest. him
der, alarm or interfere with other;
who take, or desire to take. their
places.
These employees, having taken scr
vice first with the company and after
ward with the receivers under n gen
cral contract of employment which
did not limit the exercise of the right
of service. their peaceful cooperation,
as the result of friendly argument.
persuasion or conference among ihcm-
selvcs, in asserting the right of each
and all TO refuse further service under
a schedule of reduced wages. would
not have been Illegal or criminal. al
though they may have 50 acted in the
| firm belief and expectation that Il
| simultaneous quitting without notice
would temporarily Inconvenience tht
receivers and the public. If in good
faith and p2accably. they cxercisa
| their right of quitting the service, i'll
tending thereby only 10 better their
condition by securing such wages rs
they deem just, but not to injurc or
interfere with the free action of others
they cannot he legally charged With
any loss to the trust property result
ing from their cessation of work i'll
consequence of the refusal or the re
ceivcrS to acccdc to terms upon which
they We're willing to remain in the
service. Such II loss under the cir
cumstancrs stated would be incidental
10 the situation, and could not be at
tributcd to employees exercising law
full rights in orderly ways or to the re
ceivers in good faith and fidelity 10
their trust declared reduction of
wages and thereby caused II dissatiS-
faction among employees and their
withdrawal from service"