St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1894-04-07
JUDGE JENKINS POSITION.
HIS WJUNcTIOYAL ORDER IN THE NJ
p CASE MODIFIED.
THE MEN WIN ON ONE POINT.

tons He Stands by His First
DecisiOn-A Possible Appeal to
the United States Court.
MILWAUKEE. April 6.-The decision
of Judge jenkins upon the petition to
modify his famous strike order in the
Northern Pacific -receivership matter,
which has been expected for several
weeks, was handed down today. The
court room was crowded when Judge
jenkins took his seat, and the judge had
more attentive audience while he read
the elaborate decision than usually
honors the reading of decisions in the
United States court. Ii. c. Payne was
the only one of the receivers present in
court. He was accompanied by George
P. Miller, the local attorney for the
receivers. The only representative. of
the petitioning labor organizations was
Charles QuarleS, one of the attorneys.
1t took the judge nearl y two hours to
read the decision, aud at the close the
court adjourned.
All Of the attorneys present pro-
nounce the decision comprehensive
problem. Attorney Quarles. of course,
was not pleased with it. but said he had
anticipated the decision from the time
the petition was argued. The case will
be appealed. Before adjUurning Judge
Jenkins said, as the question involved
was highly important one and it was
desirable that it should be reviewed by
court Of last resort, he would gladly
cooperate with counsel in taking steps
to secure an appeal. Justice Harlan, he
said, would sit with the appellate
court in Chicago May 81. and the
appeal might be taken SO as to have
the case decided at that time.
A decision of Judge Jenkins, the sub
stance of which is given below. grants
the technical modification OF the sup.
Elemental order asked for by the pc
titloners, while it reiterates more
strongly the real position taken in the
injunctional order. In reality there is
not point yielded, as will be seen from
the text. The order to strike out the
offensive clause in the supplemental in
junction, taken in connection with what
goes before, is delicately pointed re-
Duke TO the counsel for petitioners, for
quibbling over the ambiguity of
clause the substance of which was
clearly and strongly stated in preced-
ing sentences. TIE decision rests upon
two propositions which are deliberately
Calculated. These ere the illegal pur-
pise and character of the strike which
the order was to prevent. and the
authority Of the court to prevent and
punish illegal action.
TIE DECISION. -
In the discussion Of the important and
interesting questions presented by the
motion, it is not the province of the
court to assume part in the contest be-
tween capital LABOR which it is as
serted is herein involved. 1t may be
that the aggregated power of combined
capital is fraught with danger to the
republic. 1t may be that the aggre-
gated power of combined labor is peril.
Gus 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 invaded, and that each has
wrongs to be redressed. If dangerto
of either capital OF labor. requiring adj
dltional restraint or modification Of ex-
listing laws, it is within the peculiar
province of the legislature to determine
the necessary remedy and to declare
the general policy of the state touching
the relations between capital and labor.
With that the judicial power of the gov
eminent 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 the in
dividual and corporate rights may not
be infrlnged. If the combination and
conspiracy alleged and the acts threat
ened to be done in pursuance thereof
are unla wfui. it cannot, | think, be sue
ceSSfully denied that restraint by in
junction is the appropriate remedy. 1t
may be true that right of action at
law woald arise upon cOnsummation of
the threatened injury. but manifestly
such remedy woLld be inadequate. The
threatened interference with the opera
tons of the railway, if carried into
effect, would result in paralysis of it's
business. stopping the commerce epb-
ing and flowing through seven states of
the Union. working incalcuiabie injury
to the property, and causing
GREAT PUBLIC PRIVATION.
Pecuniary compensation would be
wholly inadequate. The injury would
be irreparable. Compensation could
be obtained only through a multiplicity
of suits against $4,000 men scattered
along the line of this railway for a dis
lance of q, 400 miles. it is the peculiar
function of equity in such eases, where
the injury would result, not alone in
severe personal, but in great public
wrong, to restrain the commission of
the threatened acts and not to send
party to seek uncertain and Inadequate
remedy at law. That Jurisdiction rests
upon settled and unaSsailaDle ground.
1t is not longer open to controversy that
aeourt of equity may restrain threat
ened trespass involving the immediate
or ultimate destruction of property.
working irreparable injury, and for
which there would be no adequate COM
pensensatlOn at law. 1t will In extreme
cases, where the peril is imminent. and
the danger great, issue mandatory in
functions requiring particular service
10 be performed. or particular direc-
ton to be given. or a particular order
to be revoked, in prevention of threat
ened treSpaSs upon property or upon
public rights. -
| need not enlarge upon this subject.
The jurisdiction, beyond question: is
plenary and comprehensive. 80
The judge then cited several author
ties and continued: oN
lie would be anomalous indeed if the
court, holding this property III possess
sion In trust, could not protect it from
injury and could not restrain interfer-
ence which would render abortive all
efforts to perform the public duties
charged upon this railway. We
1t was suggested by counsel that as
improper interference with this proper
during its
POSSESSION BY THE COURT
is Q contempt, punishment therefore