Rock Island Argus. (Rock Island, Ill.) 1893-1920, 1894-04-07
LAW FOR LABORERS
As EIucidated BY Judge Jen-
kins Once More.
HIS DISPUTED OPINION DEFENDED.

Docs Not Apparently Agree with Caldwell
- to the Efficacy OF Ipjunction., and
Tells Why He Issued the One Now
Fanous-what . strike: Means From
the Standpoint Of the Milwaukee Jurist
His Order Only Slightly Modified.
MILWAUKEE, April decisions on labor
questions come pretty thick these days,
and one from Judge jenkins, whom con-
gressional committee is going to investi-
gate because of his action in labor litiga-
ton, is of decided interest just now,
especially as it sustains the most import
ant portion Of his injunction against the
Northern Pacific employees and gives his
reasons in full for the position he takes.
and all in spite of the congressional COM
mittee, which is even now on the way to
put him on the rack
The Chiefs Asked . Modification.
The judges restraining order undoubted-
ly covered heap of ground" and the
chiefs of the railway unions asked a
modification by expunging the words:
And from combining and conspiring to
quit, with or without notice, the service
OF said receivers with the object and in
tent of Gripping the property in their
custody or embarrassing the operation of
said road; and from SO quitting the said
receivers. with or without notice, as to
cripple the property or to prevent or
hinder the operation of said railway"
They also asked that the passages in the
supplementary injunction covering the
same ground be eliminated. 1t is the in
tent.on of the chiefs and labor unions to
carry this point to the highest court, if
necessary, to obtain an entirely authorita-
tive decision of what the law is in the
case.
Not Much of Change.
The judge makes modification, but not
what WAS wanted. He strikes out the fol-
lowing words: ''And from ordering,
recommending, approving or advising
others to quit the service of the receivers
Of the Northern Pacific on Jan. ], 1894, or
at any other time" In all other respects
the judge denies the motion of the men.
He says in his opinion: I'm the discussion
of the import ant and interesting questions
presented bv the motion it is not the
province of the court to assume part in
the contest between capital and labor
which it is asserted is herein involved. 1t
may be that the aggregate power of COM
the republic. 1t may be that the aggre-
gated power of combined labor is perilous
to the peace of society and to the rights of
property. 1t doubtless is true'that in the
contest the rights of both have been in
vaGed and that each has wrongs to be re-
dressed.
Referred to the Statesmen.
II danger to the state exists from the
combination of either capital or labor, re-
quiring additional restraint or modifica-
| ton of existing laws, it is within the Pc
culiar proviRce of the legislature to de
termine the necessary remedy and to de-
| clare the general policy Of the state touch
ing the relations between capital and
| labor. With that the judicial power of
the government is not concerned. But it
| Is the duty of the courts to restrain those
warning factions SO far as their actions
may infringe the declared law of the land,
| that society may not be disrupted or its
peace invaded and that individual and
| corporate rights may not be infringed.
IF the combination and conspiracy
alleged and the acts threatened to be done
| in pursuance thereof are unlawful, it can
not. think. be successfully denied that
| restraint by injunction is the appropriate
J remedy. 1t might he true that a right of
, action at law would arise upon consumma-
ton of the threatened injury, but mani
testify such remedy would be inadequate
The threatened interference with the oper-
atoms of the railway, if carried into effect,
would result in paralysis of its business
stopping the commerce ebbing and flowing
through seven states of the Union, work
ing incalculable injury to the property
and causing great public privation.
Pecuniary compensation would be wholly
inadequate. The injury would be irrepar-
| able.''