The Ohio Democrat. (Logan, O. [Ohio]) 1886-1906, 1894-04-21
1T MUST STAND.
Judge Jenkins Refuses to Change
His Famous Decision.
It IL Modified in . Minor Particular. But
He Remains Firm Regarding Its
Main Featurcs--Strlkes Are
Bitterly Condemned.
SYNOPSIS or THE DECISION.

bitterly Condemned.
SYNOPSIS or THE DECISION.
MILWAUKEE, April 0. If labor or
ganizations achieved victory in
Omaha Thursday at the hands of
Judge Caldwell they were given a
black eye by Judge Jenkins Friday
when he decided the motion to amend
his strike order and sustained his
original order in every particular ex-
cept that he struck out the clause
which reads: "And from or
dering, recommending, approving
and advising others to quit the
service of the receivers of
the Northern Pacific January 1, 1894, or
any other time" In all it's essential
| features the original order is sustained.
He takes IN exactly contrary view to
that of Judge Caldwell. The judges
review of the case is complete and ex-
haustive and carefully covers everypoint
raised in the argument. 1t is a sweep
Ing victory for the receivers. The
! judge WAS nearly two hours in deliver
Ing the decision.
Labor Organizations Denounced.
The decision is made noticeable by
the pronounced stand taken by the
judge on what is generally known as
the labor question" The vehemence
of the language used, coupled with
the general denunciation of labor organ
izations and their methods, will cause
the order to be discussed in every sec
ton of the country. The decision con-
tains fully 10000 words, large por-
ton, however, being made up of opin-
ions quoted from various decisions of
other judges. After reviewing the case
the judge says in his decision:
Combined Capital and Combined Labor.
''In the discussion Of the important and inter.
estng questions presented by this motion it is
not within the province of the court to assume
part in the contest between capital and labor
which, 1t is asserted, is here involved. 1t may
be that the aggregated power of combined cap
ital is fraught with danger to the republic. 1t
mag bo that the aggregated power of combined
! labor is perious to the peace OF society ana to
the rights OF property. 1t doubtless is true that
| in the contest the rights of both havo been in
| vaded, and that each has wrongs to be re-
dressed If danger to the state exists from the
combination of either capital or labor, requir-
| ing additional restraint or modification of eX-
isting 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
ernmcnti is not concerned. But it is the duty of
the courts to restrain those warning factions so
far Us their action 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 infringcd
injunction the Proper Remedy.
"If the combination and conspiracy alleged
| and the acts threatened TO be done in pursuance
thnr p1ptN fail l. ls,,1- 1,.
successfully denied that restraint by injunc.
tion is the appropriate remedy 1t may be
| true that right of action at law would
arise upon consummation of the threatened
| injury, but manifestly such remedy would be
| inadequate. The threatened interference with
the opera tions OF the railway, il carried into
enectS would result in paralysis of its business
stopping the commerce ebbng and flowing
through seven states of the union, working in
calculable injury to the property and causing
great public privation. Pecuniary compen-
sation would be wholly inadequate. The in
| jury would be irreparabie. Compensation could
be obtained orly through Il multiplicity of suits
against H. COO men scattered along the line Of
| This railway for distance of 4, 400 miles 1t is
he peculiar function of equity in such cases,
! Shere the injury would result not alone in Sc
we're private but in great public wrong, to re-
strain the commission of the threatened acts and
| not TO send a party 10 seek uncertain and in
| adequate remedy at law.
| "That jurisdiction rests upon settled and un-
| essailable ground. 1t is no longer open to con
troversy that court of equity may restrain
threatened trcspass involving the immediate or
ultimate obstruction OF property, working ire.
| parable injury, and for which there would be no
| adequate compensation at law. 1t will in ex-
| treme cases, where the peril is imminent and the
! danger great, issue mandatory injunctionS re-
| quiring u particular service to be performed, or
u particular direction to be given, or II partic
! lar order to be revoked, in prevention of a
threatened trcspass upon property or upoa pub
| lie rights.
~ need not enlarge upon the subject The
jurisdiction is beyond question; is plenary and
comprehensive.
Punishment for Contempt Not Enough.
The judge then cited several author
tiles and continued:
ut would be anomalous indeed II the court,
holding this property in possession in trust 1,
could not protect 1t from injury and could not
restrain interference which would render abor
tive oil efforts to perform the public duties
| charged upon this railway
ut was suggested by counsel that MS improp
er interference with this property during It's
possession by the court is u contempt punish.
ment therefor would furnish ample remedy,
and that therefore an injunction would not lie,
| This Is clearly an erroneous view. Punishment
for contempt is not compensation for an
| injury The pecuuiary penalty for con.
tumacy does not go to the owner OF the prop.
| erty injured. Such contempt is deemed pub.
lie wrong and the fine inures to the govern
ment The injunction goes In prevention OF
wrong to property and Injury to the public vel.
fare; the fine, in punishment OF contumacy.
| The writ reaches the inchoate conspiracy to in.
jure and prevents the contemplated wrong.
The proceedings in contempt Is ex post facto
Furnishing for wrong effected"
No Right to QUIT When He PIeases.
The judge then reviews the condi.
tions that gave rise to the issuance OF
the writ. Continuing he says:
"There would seem to exist In some minds a
lamcntable misrepresentation Of the terms lib.
erty' and right 1t would seem by some 10 be
supposed that in this land one has the constitu.
tional right 10 do as one may please, and that
any restraint upon the will is an infringement
upon freedom OF action Rights are not abso.
Lutte, but are relative. Rights grow out of duty
and are limited by duty. One has not the right
arbitrarily to quit service without regard 10
the necessities OF thut service His right OF
abandonment is limited by the assumption OF
that service, and the conditions and exigencies
attaching thereto
Ordinarily the abandonment of service by
an individual Is accompanied with SO little of
Inconvenience, and with such slight resulting
loss, that 1t is u matter OF but little moment
when or how he may quit the service. But for
all that the principle romans, recognized by
every just mind that the quitting must be
timely and decent IN view OF existing condi.
tions. II what have stated be