Eagle River review. [volume] (Eagle River, Wis.) 1890-1927, 1894-06-14
JENKINS SUSTAINED.
Report OF the Minority of the Sub
Committee Of the Judiciary
Committee

Washington, D. c., June S-Represent.
alive William A. Stone, of Pennsylvania,
to-day submitted minority report on the
recent investigation by subcommittee
of the House judiciary committee OF the
course of Judge Jenkins in issuing his
Northern Pacific injunctions The report
is signed by Representative Stone, Rep
resentative Ray, of New York, and Keep
resentative Powers, of Vermont. After
reviewing briefly the history of the in
functions issued by Judge Jenkins. the
subsequent proceedings under them. and
the institution of congressional lnyeStlSa-
ton, the report says:
Itappcars by the testimony taken by the sub
committee of the House judiciary committee
that the employees understood the in functions to
prevent them from leaving the service of the
railroad in any manner without the consent OF
the receivers. A motion was made before Judge
Jenkins to modify the terms of his orders; and
in an opinion fled, which is published with the
testimony in this case, he discaims any intcn-
ton by his injunction TO prevent any of the en-
ployeS from quitting the service of the company
IN u peaceable, decent or reasonable way In
his opinion he says: "None will dispute the
general proposition of the right of everyone to
choose his employer and 10 determine the time
and conditions of service, or his right to aban-
don such service peaceably and decently. An
appeal to the court of appeals of that district
from these injunctions granted by Judge .en-
kins taken. where the same is now pending
with the expectation of decision within the
near future.
The committee has reported at some length
taking issue with Judge jenkins solely upon the
law of the case and holding that he committed
grave legal errors and was guilty of an abuse OF
legal process, and has submitted resolution
for adoption by the House, and also recon-
mended Il statute prohibiting the enforcement of
specific performance of labor contracts by legal
process. AS the minority do not represent the
governing power of the House, they do not feel
called upon to indulge in any affirmative prop
osition in relation to the subject matter of the
| report. Their recommendations would have no
| power and therefore, IL Is not worth while 70
make them.
The labor question, in its relation with rail
roads, is one full of complication because of the
public interest which intervenes. In ordinary
| cases between employers and employees, the
| public have only remote interest but here
| they have direct one: not only free passage
| from place to place is prevented, but supplies
| are cut off and business paralyzed. On the one
| hand it is for nobody's interest to cripple
| the railroad owners. tor injury to them.
| when made systematic and general, would
| be death to all improvements and hindrance
| to other railroad building. On the other hand,
men entitled to IL fair voice in the settlement
of the amount of which they are to be paid, and
| must have a reasonable combined voice. 1t
must be still further said that some method of
| adjustment must be had which will secure pub
| lie traffic and the business of all people from
| being interrupted by the disputes of those i'm
mcdiatelv concerned. 1t can be seen at glance
that such q question cannot be settled by mere
language or by acts of partisans, but must be
| settled by the concurrence OF DOtn parties on q
common basis. The basis of settlement will be
found when the persons interested have had the
| benefit of many failures on both sides. We have
| great hopes that basis Will soon be reached,
| first by finding what the law is, and second by
agreeing to what it ought to be. We, therefore.
must decline to follow the majority into any dis
! QUESTION as to what the law is. That seems to
! be under control of another branch and already
| In train to be settled authoritatively.
| But the attitude of the ma jority is one which
| ought not to pass without animadversion. If,
| as the committee saws, the Testimony adduCed
| before fails to show any corrupt intent on the
part of the judge" and if also ait is altogether
| possible that he sincerely believes the orders
| granted by him were sanctioned by law then
| the question should be left to the appellate
| tribunal. A federal Judge in the exercise of his
| functions having arrived at Il conclusion with
| out ''any corrupt intent q conclusion che sin
cersly believes in," ought hardly be harrassed
| by a congressional committee, since he is quite
| as likely to be right on point of law as they
| Individually we may not believe his law was
sound and may not think it Will be so pro
nounced by the tribunal OF appeal, but II be wa!
| honest and has given his honest opinion honest
", it would seem as if the correction SHOULD
come from another source, and that the law
should be settled by the proper tribunal prior &c
| legislation. 1t may be that no legislation is
| required, and the appellate court Will afford al
| the relief the country needs.
II on the other hand Judge Jenkins has been
we will not say corrupt, but unduly swayed il
the exercise of his functions by improper inlu
| ences or has stated law badly that it is pail
| he has violated his evident duty Il holder o
interests then he should be impeachcd. In ;
| word, if he has been corrupt. or has so WresteC
the law of the land that injustice has been done
so evident that it carried with it the proof o
| evil intent then Congress has plain duty K
| perform But if it be mere question of law
| then the judiciary have the duty to perform
and Congress. by granting court of appeals
| has ended its duty. OF course when the case Il
finished, if the final appeal should demonstrate
that the law is defective, then remedies Shoult
be applied; butwe out to know what the law Il
before we act. 1t should be finally determined
| that Judge Jenkins was wrong, then the law ma!
| not need amendment The committee think ht
was wrong and yet they purpose to act as If h'
were right
SO much for the legislation originally pro
posed. AS for the resolution proposed later, W.
do not sec how it could be justified. Were tide
mandcd that we should vote condemnation o
any proposition that involuntary scrvithdt
| should be established by amy Interpretation o
law, all sensible men would be agreed. and Re
| publicnps most of ALL but TO propose that
| Judge Who, as the majority declare, had no "cor
| rupt intent ana "Who sincerely believes il
| his conclusions, shall. without impeachment
| be censured by the Legislative branches Of th
| government, is to contound ali distinctions be
tween the legislative and judicial powers ant
create a side tribunal Of appeal where justic
would be for sale to the sutton who could pol
the largest vote