St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1894-04-11

first Injunction, which forbade the en-
plOyeS of the Northern Pacific from strik-
Ing and also the order which was issued
by Judge jenkins. He said this was
customary among attorneys in like
cases. he said, however, that he had
nothing to do with the supplementary
injunction. Mr.. SpOoner said he took
for the basis of the order for the injunc-
ton decision by Judge Pardee, OF the
federal court, in the Higgins case. but
Attorney Curtis admitted, in answer to
question by Attorney Harper, that
there was no precedent for Judge
Jenkins order. There was some lively
parleying between MIR. Spooner and At
torney Harper, who represented the
labor chiefs.
The testimony of the labor chiefs was
similar to that of Chiefs Clark and Sar-
gent yesterday. They all agreed that
the Injunction prevented them from eX-
ercsing their constitutional rights.
They were unanimous in the opinion
that no man had felt compelled to re-
main at werk, but what they objected
10 was the application Of such a power
by the court. which they did not think
was justice.
Mr.. Arnold was asked by Attorney
Curtis II 1t were not true that among
the stronger and better LABOR organiza-
tons strikes were discouraged, and if
they we're not generally considered an
evil. The answer was in the affirma-
tive. Boatner asked if the wisdom and
Judgment or the executive officers did
not have much to do with keeping the
labor organizations in good condition.
Not being an executive officer" said
Mr.: Arnold. Il can answer that frankly
i'll the affirmative"
In reply to further questions. Mr.. Ar
mold said that the organizations among
railroad men had done much to promote
intelligence and morality among them.
and today lie considered the average of
intelligence among railroad men was
higher than among other workmen. 1t
was his experience that where violence
had been used during strikes and prop
erly had been destroyed, it was by the
hangers-on on the outside. the lawlesS
element. which always turns uD during
disturbance. Chief Clark was re-
called and Mr.. Stone took him in hand.
The congressman asked if it were not
the desire and purpose of these organ
nations to get i'll their ranks ali men of
their class; in other words, to form d
trust or monopoly, as monopoly of
money or capital, so as TO control abso-
lutely the different lines of work. Mr.
Clark answered i'll the affirmative.
There followed here quite a discus
sion, IN which Mr.. Boatner and Mr.
Stone. of the committee. and MIR. Clark
took part, in which Clark stated eX-
plicitly just what the labor men objected
to i'll Judge Jenkins decision. The OBJ
jectians, which were two, lay against
the clause prohibiting the men to quit
work with Or without notice in way to
cripple the road, and the clause restrain
ing the labor chiefs from advising and
comforting with the men.
The feature Of the afternoon session,
in fact the chief feature OF the day, was
ex-senator Spooner's examination.
Mr.. Spooner was preceded by ID. g.
Ramsay, grand chief Of the railway te.
iegrapherS, who gave testimony similar
10 that of the other chiefs relative to
methods of ordering strike, and to the
effect upon this organization OF the
strike order.
Chairman Boatner explained to Mr..
SpoOner that they did not wish to ask
him questions which would if answered
violate his relations to his clients.
Il waive all objections" said Mr..
SpoOner. ''My clients, the receivers.
have instructed NE to tell everything |
know about the case"
The questions headed at once toward
the authorship of the injunctional
order.
II partly prepared the first injunc-
t!On," said Mr. SpGoner, ''aud the order
was probably written by counsel. though
/ do not recollect whether | assisted
DIR. Miller in writing it,"
bow long did Judge Jenkins hold
| the petition under adviSement before
| issuing the order?' MIR. Boatner asked.
From Monday morning until Tues
! day morning."
MIR. Spooner then, at the request of
Mr.. Terry, proceeded to tell all he
| knew about the preparation and issu-
| ance of the order. He was telegraphed
| for to go to ST. Paul on the 18th of De-
| cemDer, and there met General MAN.
| ager KendIick. He informed him of
| the proposed reduction in wage sched-
ules, which, in the condition of the
road, then seemed necessary. Kendrick
| stated that the majority of the en-
| ployes of the road appreciated the
| condition of affairs, and would not OBJ
| ject to reduced wages. There was an
| clement, however, which threatened to
strike if new schedules went into force
and to destroy engines and damage
property. Some of the men, Kendrick
Said, questioned tae right of the recelv-
| erS to change the wage schedule with
out the authority of the court. Mr.
| Kendrick had not told the receivers of
this state of affairs, and Mr.. Spooner
| advised him to do so at once.
| The next MIR. Spooner heard of the
matter was telegram to come to Mil
waukee to meet Receivers Payne, Cakes
and Rouse. Mr.. Kendrick was there.
| and they consulted about the new
schedule, and the necessity for an i'll
| junction. Inc new schedule Mr.
Spooner had hand in preparing for
submission to the court. He dictated
part of it. and MIR. Miller a part. He
presented the matter to Judge Jen-
kins in chambers, and called his
| attention to the portion which
might be open to discus
| sion, but which he (Spooner) told the
| Judge was sustainable. and referred to
Judge Pardee's decision to fortify his
position. He told the judge of the
luiCdtOnCo tiouUiC ny lhcn dlOuS IH0
road because of the new schedule. The
| judge took the matter under advise
ment, and Tuesday issued the order as
| prayed.
| After getting at these facts the men,
| bers of The committee showed quite a
| disposition to discuss the legal merits
| of the decision, but Spooner declined.
There were several interesting passages
between the ex-senator and Chairman
Boatner. The latter asked a question
about what the committee might do in
| the case.
you cannot ask me TO give my opin-
! len Of the appointment and the funo-