The herald. [microfilm reel] (Los Angeles [Calif.]) 1893-1900, 1894-05-05

authority; were beyond the jurisdiction
OF the judge and were therefore void.
THE second or supplementary writ
was more reprehensible than the fret,
because the Judge was advised before he
rendered It OF the exact object and pur-
pose sought to be accomplished. There
was no suggestion in either OF these let
ters of any fear OF illegal acts, but the
fear OF suspension OF traffic, of an at
tending damage to the road and incon-
venience to the public were the sole
reasons for the action which the judge
took.
Your committee also finds that no
measure looking 20 q strike had been in
augurated NOR does any seem to have
been in contemplation, nor does it APP
pear that any OF the persons named or
referred to in the writ of injunction have
remained in the service OF the company
against their will. 1t does appear,
however, that while they regarded ths
writs void, they believed that 80 long as
it WAS in force they we're bound to obey
it, under penalty punishment for con-
tempt il they violated 1t, and this con-
sideration might have been more effect
i've than they were aware OF in inducing
them to remain in the service of the re-
ceivers.
Your committee does not concur in
the opinion OF tho Judge that the de-
csion rendered in the Toledo cases,
page 81. Federal Reports, by Judges
Taft and Kicks ct al, support contsn-
ton in the case under consideration.
On the contrary, both OF this cases clear
ly recognize the principle that courts OF
equity cannot enforce the specific per-
Torrance Of the contract for personal
service by wrlts of injunction and other
processes, but that in such cases the
remedy is at law by an action for dam.
ages. They also clearly recognize the
| right OF the laboring people, as means
OF selling their labor at higher price,
OF coercing employers to accede to their
demands, Ia detecting the lswfulness
OF proceeding of this kind, the judges
justly take the law as sustaining the
employees in the contention that con.
venience to the general public cannot be
considered.
I'll employees have the lawful right to
combine In strike for the purpose OF
forcing compliance with their demands
or securing the highest wages and best
terms possible. that righ cannot be rem
edied by the fact that it's exercise is
| levied on the interests OF others. lts
principle applies, OF course, only to those
strikes which exist in the withdrawal
from service by concerted Combination.
! Should violence be done to the person or
property III the employer by those who
nave combined against him, if others
would supply the service which the
strikers have abandoned, and are pre-
vented from doing so by violence, intim-
idation, threats or other unlawful means,
| these acts are not only unlswiul, but in
most instances would constitute viola
tons of the criminal laws and be pun
ishsble as such.
la the case reported in the federal
report in re higgins, Judge Pardse de-
clared that his power to punish Tor con
tempt was unlimited. both as to the
amount of the fine and duration of inn
prisonment. In his judgment he could
decide without appeal what constituted
a contempt. who committed the act and
this extent OF punish to be inflicted.
In that case he held number of viola
tions OF the criminal laws OF the state OF
Texas, likewise to be contempt OF his
court.
Under his construction an assault
and battery or any other violence or I'M
fairness committed by an employee or
servant OF railroad company in the
contempt of his court II this prnci-
| pie is correct one, and the decisions
| seem 10 bs cited by other courts and
! when approved it would be ex-
tremely convenient to substitute
it for the criminal laws OF the
states. Exercise of police powers
and the protection OF life and property
by those agencies would be relieved by
the authority of United States judge,
who instituted proceedings for contempt.
Limitations contained in the constitu.
tion, viz: Providing for trials by jury.
being confronted by witnesses, being
represented by counsel. etc., would like.
wise be relieved.
without taking issue with the judges
as to whether they have correctly or
Incorrectly stated the law on this i'm
portant subject, your committee ia of
the opinion that the protection OF prop
erty rights should be left in the hands
OF the executive officers and that viola
tons of laws should be punished by pro-
ceeding dsied and provided by law, and
that in order to prevent the abuse of
authority claimed by the judiciary, their
| power to punish for contempt should be
defined and limited by law"
Fouvht I.iIxa VVnlvas.