St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1894-10-02

right. But the vital question remains
whether court of equity Will. under
any circumstances, by injunction. pre-
vent one individual from quitting the
personal service of another.
IAN affirmative answer to this ques-
tion is not, we 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 or remain
in the personal service of another. One
who is placed in such restraint is in
condition of involuntary servitude-a
condition which the supreme law OF the
land declares shall not exist anywhere
within the jurisdiction of the United
States"
The decision then went on to discuss
whether the fact that the property III
volved was a railway. with public duties
to perform. gave the court the right to
restrain the men from quitting.
The receivers, the decision declares.
had the right TO make a new schedule OF
wages and offer it to the men with the
alternative of accepting it or quitting
the service. The men had the right 10
accept OF refuse and to quit If they
were not willing to work for less
wages. The courts should have eliml-
mated the words "and from SO quitting
the service of the said receivers, with
or without notice, as to cripple the
property or prevent or hinder the oper-
alton of the road"
but different considerations must
CONTROL" said Justice Harlan, "in re-
spect to the words in the same para
graph of the injunction, and from COM
binlng and cOnSpiring to quit, with or
without notice. the service OF SAID re-
ceivers. with the object and intent of
Gripping the properly in their custody,
or embarrassing the operation of the
road We Lave 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"
When Employees May Strike.
The decision discusses the right of
employees to strike as follows:
1.-The general inhibition upon combi-
nations and coDspiracies formed with
| the object and intent of Gripping the
| property and embarrassing the opera
| tiOn of the railroad must be construed
| as referring only to acts of violence, in
| timidation and wrong. We do not i'll
| terpret the words last above quoted as
| embracing the case of employees who,
being dissatisfied with the proposed re-
| duction of their wages. merely with
| draw on that account, singly Or-Dy con-
certed action, from the service of the
| receivers, using neither force. threats,
persecution nor intimidation toward
employees who do not join them,
nor any device to molest, hinder,
| alarm or interfere with others
who take or desire to take their
| places. These employees having taken
| service first with the company and aft
| eIWard with the receivers, under a gem
| eral contract OF employment which did
| not limit the exercise OF the right to quit
| the service, their peaceful cooperation,
| as the result of friendly argument, per-
| SuaSion or conference among them
| selves, in asserting the right OF each
| and all to refuse further service under a
| schedule of reduced wages, would not
| have been illegal or criminal, although
| they may have so acted i'll the firm be
| lief and expectation that simultaneous
| quitting without notice would Temporal
| riiy Inconvenience the receivers and the
| public. If in good faith and peaceably,
| they exercise their right of quitting the
service. Intending thereby only to better
| their condition by securing such wages
| as they deem Just. but not to
injure or Interfere with the
free action of others, they can
not be legally charged with any loss to
the trust property resulting from their
cessation 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 loss,
under the circumstances stated, would
| be Incidental to the situation and could
| not be attributed to employees exercising
n