The Helena independent. [volume] (Helena, Mont.) 1875-1943, 1894-05-05
Majority Report OF tho Congress
sional Committee Considering
His n p Injunction.
Declared 10 Have Been "A Gross
Abuse OF the Power OF
the Court.
Not Supported by Reason or Authority
Wss:Beyond His Jurisdiotion. and
Therefore Void.

/ lointed 20 inVeatlRate the Northern Phoinc
I decisions OF Judge jenkins. to-day sub
mitted to the foil judiciary committee ths
majority report OF the special COMMITTEES.
The report says the orders Of tho court. re-
dncing wages and prohibiting the employees
ftom quitting work, were a gross abuse Of
the power Of the court were supported By
neithtr reason nor authority, we're bsyon
the jurisdiction OF the Judge and we're
therefore void. The second or supple
mental writ was more repTehensible th an
the hrat because the judge was advised be-
fore he rendered IL OF the exact ioot and
purposes sought 20 be accomplished.
Tie conclusion Of the judge. that the
employees OF the Northern Pacific Railroad
compsny might be 70 ced by him by writs
Of injunction to protect that company from
loss and the public from inconvenience by
remaining 10 its service at rate OF wages
20 which they had not given assent. is one
In which We cannot concur. and which In
our Judgment is supported By none Of the
decisions which he cites.
Your committee find nothing In the tes-
timony, nor see any corrupt intention on
the part of the judge to render these orders.
10 is sltoRothss IMPOSSIBLE that he was sim
exercised the equity jurisdiction OF the
court IN preventing the loss and
damage, which would have resulted from
a lawful strike against the Northern Pa
cifio Railroad company. This view Of the
case prevents US from recommending any
proceedings looking to impeachment. but
in order that there may be no further ex-
cuse for the rendition OF such orders or de-
] 0Fn md hat mh a. - e. . f.a
/ United States may not be deceived a. 90
the extent Of their powers in enforcing
contracts fo' personal services by legal
process, We recommend the enactment of .
statute which will prevent them doing 40
| I'VE also feel constrained 30 call atten-
tion TO abuses vhieq have grown up under
the powers assumed by judges OF United
States courts 20 appoint receivers for rail
road corporations. These orders being
rendered In court under proceedings insti-
tutsd nominally for the purposo OF effect
! ing foreclosures, but really Tor the pnrpOas
OF avertinR the pursuit of creditors and the
enforcemant OF lawful obligations. ore con-
sidered a. interlocutory aud not subject to
/ appeal. IT, however. appeal Is granted, u
/ does not have the effect Of suspendina the
execution of the decree and ths road passes
/ into ths hands Of receivers. who operate 10
at least pending appeal. and this action OF
the judge is entirely Independent of control
whatever by ownora and creditors Of the
property.
The powers exercised by the courts
through receivers are purely OF their own
creation. the result Of Judicial construction,
not aecettained or limited by statute. aud
therefore danCerOu0. Your COMMITTEES is OF
the opiaion that osses for which receiver
ship may be ordered IN the coutts Of the
United States should be declared boy
statute
The Gnomaly has been presented for
yeara OF great railway corporations being
operated and the business OF common car
liars carried on by the United states
through prejudioiAl lines OF government
and of judges possessing al once powers
pertaining to Other iudIcial officers, and
combining with this the power Of the pre-
sidont and directors OF corporations united
In one and the same person.
The committee is also Of opinion that the
power asserted by judges of United states
courts to punish for contempt Is dangerous
and should be limited by law.
The repO 3 was discussed for two hours,
but no action was taken by she full com
mittse. The report vas made a special or
der for the full committee next tuesday.
Res Irssentative W. A. Stone. OF Pennsylva-
mia. republican msmb0r OF the committee,
dissents from the majority on the ground
that 10 is an attempt 30 make a Judicial rul-
ing. but he has not yet submitted a minor
| ity report.
After reciting the we'll known facts aud
circumstances leading up 90 ths granting
Of the two orders OF injunction by Judge
jenkins, tho majority Tcpo Z proceeds ns
follows; Notwithstanding the suggestion
by employees that they desired 60 confer.
the orders were immediately obtained with
out waiting the results of the conference.
or bsing IN possession Of any definite infor-
nation Of the intention OF the employees
with respect 90 schedules upon which they
solicited a conference. The original order.
received on Dec. 10 had tWO-fold aspect.
] adj ~ cd j
prohibited thoss who wee 90 receive them
n they remained Ia the service OF the com
pany, from quitting such service with or
without notice. c.ippling the property and
( iniuring she ope ations OF the road
The Judge granted the second order OF
| injunction Dec. %. The object OF this was
/ 20 insu . she company the compulsory ser
vices OF the operatives then ip ts employ.
! because under the frat order OF injunction
the men could not quit without being
guilty OF contempt and would not do 90
unless Orde cd by the officers of their sew
eral organizations. and n thsos officers
/ we prohibited from advising strike 10
was perfectly evident the officers so en-
Joined could not discharge this junction OF
/ thor office. aud the men could NOT Quit
when prohibited from 80 doing by the
court. aud not authorized 90 do 80 by the
/ organization bY whose rules aud rogula-
tions they were Coverned. This was she
object sought 20 be obtained; that the o. dcT
was u avn Ao eueciuhto ~, nnd Was Hlguol
| by the judge with that intant che language
of the order aud conc0mitant ciTcuu-
stances left no room for doubL
Your COMMITTEES has no hesitation In
declaring that the orders rendered were
gross abuses of the power OF the oourt: wero
suppo tsd by neither reason nor authority;
we're beyond the Jurisdiction OF she iudge
and we're therefore void. Ihs second or
supplementary viii wns more reprehsnsi-
bio than the hrst laers was no sugces-
ton IN oither of any fear Of illegal acts but
fear from the suspe1ss uf traffic. OF an al
tending damage 90 tue TOAD, aud iucon-
venience 81 the public. we're tho sole rea-
sons Tor the action which the judge took.
Your committee also hnds that no
measures looking % striks had bsen in
anguratei. nor does any seem 90 have been
in coutemp platiou, nof does 90 appear that
any OF the Iersons named OF referred 90 Ia
che wit OF injunction have remained IN the
service Of the COMPANY against their viii.
10 does Appsar however. that while they
regarded the writ void, they believed 90
long as 10 Was In forca they we're bouud 90
obey "a under penalty of punishment for
oontsmpt n they violated ~, and ans cen
alteration might have bssn mote elective