The representative. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1893-1901, 1894-10-03

the opinion, the famous strike injunction
OF Judge Jenkins was rather severely hand
LED Judge Harlan held that body of men
mad a right to quit irrespective of the dis
comfort which might result They had,
however, no right to conspire to do dana ge
or to embarrass. He did not agree with
jenkins famous definition of a strike that
1t was necessarily illegal" Judge Harlan
held that there was such a legal thing as
a strike. Judge jenkins injunction was
modified. The opinion was rendered by
Justice of the Supreme Court Harlan and
Judges Wood and Bum. The bench was
occpuied today by Justice Harlan and
Judges Woods, Bum, Jenkins and Grosscup
Judge Jenkins appeared undisturbed by
the decision.
THE DECISION IN PART REVERSES
the famous anti-strke order of Judge Jsn-
kins and in part sustains it. That part of
the jenkins injunction which restrained
the employees of the road from striking or
In the language of the Injunction from
so quitting the service of the said receiv-
ers. with or without notice, to cripple
the property or prevent or hinder the op-
GRAFTON of the road the court of appeals
declares was a violation of the rights of
the employees, who could not legally be re-
strained from leaving the employ of the
receivers and the company wh1n they saw
lit to do SO, whether they quit in body
individually.
That part of the injunction which re-
strained the employees from entering into
a combination or conspiracy to quit with
the intention of Gripping the property and
preventing the operation of the road is
sustained On the whole, the decision
which was read by Justice Harlan, who
presided over the court, is a clear recogni-
tion of the right of the employees to strike
Justice Harlan, before giving the con-
cluslonS OF the court, reviewed the history
of the celebrated injunction. The receivers
OF the road In December last gave notice of
a reduction of wages all along the line
and when the men threatened to strike
Judge jenkins issued the Injunction, on De-
cember 10, preventing strike Two days
later he amended the injunction making it
more stringent. The Brotherhood of Loco
motive Engineers joined with the other
labor unions to which the men belonged
and applied to Judge Jenkins for a modific-
alton OF the order. Judge Jenkins refused
to strike out the clause enjoinng a strike
and the labor unions appealed to the higher
court.
The decision says that the Injunction
against employees so quitting to cripple
the property or prevent or hinder the oper-
alton of the road was equivalent to 4 COM
mand by the court that hey should remain
in the active employment of the receivers,
and perform the service appropriate to
their respective positions until they could
quit without gripping the road The time
when they could quit not indicated by
the order of the court.
"CNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES"
says the decision, may the employees of
the receivers have the right to quit the ser
vice In which they were engaged? Much of
the argument of counsel directed to
this question. We shall not attempt to lay
down any rule applicable to every case that
may arise between employer and employe.
II an employee quits without cause and in
violation of an express contract to serve
for a stated time, then his quitting would
not be of right. But the vital question re-
mains whether a court of equity will under
any circumstances, by Injunction prevent
one individual from quitting the personal
service of another.
AN affirmative answer to this question
IS not, think, justified by any authority
to which our attention has been called or
of which we are aware. 1t would be an
invasion of ones natural liberty to compel
him to work remain in the personal ser
vice of another. One who is placed in such
restraint is in condition of involuntary SER
vitude--a condition which the supreme law
of the land declares shall not exist any
where within the jurisdiction of the United
States
The decision then went on to discuss
whether the fact that the property involv-
ed a railroad, with public duties to
perform, gave the court the right to re-
strain the from quitting. The receiv-
ers, the decision declares, had the right
to make new schedule of wages and Of
fer it to the men with the alternative of
accepting it or quitting the service. The
men had the right to accept or refuse and
to quit if they were not willing to work
for lass wages The court should have
eliminated the words land from so quitting
the service of the said receivers, with or
without notice, as to cripple the property
prevent or hinder the operation of the
road"
But different considerations must con-
troll" said Justice Harlan, Sin respect to
the words in the same paragraph of the
injunction, and from combining and con-
spring to quit. with without notice, the
service of said receivers with the object
and intent of Gripping the property in
their custody or embarrassing the operation
of the road. We have said that if employees
were unwilling to remain in the service for
the compensation prescribed for them by
the revised schedules. it was the right of
each one on that account to withdraw
from the service"
The decision discussed the right of en-
ployes 10 strike as follows: The general in
hibiton upon combinations and conspiracies
formed with the object and intent of Grip
ling the property and embarrassing the
operation of the railroad, must be con-
strued referring only to acts of violence,
intimidati ton and wrong We do not inter-
pref the words last above quoted en-
bracing the case of employees who, being
dissatisfied with the proposed reduction of
their wages, merely withdraw that ac-
count. sinGly 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
any devices to modest hinder, alarm. or in
terfere with others who take or desire to
take their places.
These employees having taken service first
with the company and afterward with the
receivers under general contract of en-
else of
THE RIGHT TO QUIT THE SERVICE,
their peaceful cooperation, as the result
of friendly argument, persuasion con-
ference among themselves, in asserting the
right of each and all to refuse further SER
vice under a schedule of reduced wages,
although they may have acted in the
firm belief and expectation that a stimuli
taneous quitting without notice would tenn
porary Inconvenience the receivers and
the public.
If in good faith and peaceably they exer-
se their right of quitting the service,
tending thereby only to better their con-
dition by securing such wages as they
deem just but not to injure interfere
with the FREQ action Of others, they cannot
be legally charged with any loss to the
trust property resulting from their cessa-
ton Of work in consequence of the refusal
OF the receivers to accede to the terms
upon which they were willing to remain in
the service Such a loss, under the cir
cumstances stated would be Incidental to
the situation and could not be attributed
to employees exercising lawful rights in
orderly ways. or to the receivers who in
good faith and in fidelity to their trust
declared a reduction Of wages and thereby
Il; icfo n1lnl q n