The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1894-04-06
WILL NOT GIVE IN.
Judge Jenkins Hands Down His
Decision Today.
He MOdifies His Anti-Strike
Order But Little.
TO STRIKE IN A BODY
Regarded AS a Conspiracy OF
the Employees.
The Modification Made isAlmOst
Immaterial.
THE PUBLIC'S RIGHTS
Not to Be Disturbed By Railroad
SquabbIes.
Both Sides Have Been at Fault
Says Jenkins.
THE PUBLIC'S RIGHTS
Not to Be Disturbed By Railroad
SquabbIes.
Both Sides Have Been at Fault
Says Jenkins.

MINIATURES, April 6.-The long looked
for decision by Judge Jenkins on the
motion made by the chiefs of the great
railway organizations for modification
of his famous Northern Pacific strike
orders, was rendered in the United States
circuit court at o'clock this afternoon.
The motion was made by p. nj. Arthur,
grand chief executive officer of the
Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers;
F. r. Sargent. grand chief of the Fire
mems Brotherhood; K. Clark, grand
chief of the conductors; d. G. Ram
sey, chief of the Telegraphers' National
associations; s. Z. Wilkins, grand chief
of the Brotherhood of Trainmen. and
John Wilkinson, grand chief of the
Switchmen's Mutual Benefit association.
The petition asks for the modification of
the injunction of Decemb ber 9, by ex-
punging the words land from combining
and cOnspiring toNquit. with or without
notice to the said receivers with the OBJ
ject and intent of crippling the property
in their custody, or embarrassing the op-
Grafton of said road and from so quitting
the said receivers, with or without no.
tice, as to cripple the property, as TO pre-
vent or hinder the operation of said
road"
1t also asked that the passages supple
v
stronger) covering the same ground, be
eliminated.
To Bring a Direct Issue.
The object of the motion to bring
to direct issue before the court the
question whether courts can grant in
functions to restrain employees from strik-
/ ing.
Judge Jenkins modifies his injunc-
tional order by striking out the clause
which reads: "And from ordering,
recommending, approving advising
others to quit the service of the receivers
of the Northern Pacific railway on JAN
uary 1, 1894, any other time" In all
other respects the judge denies the mo-
tion of the men.
Judge Jenkins said: "In the discus
sion of the important and interesting
questions presented by the motion, it IS
not the province of the court to assume
part in the contest between capital and
labor, which it is asserted is here involv-
ed. 1t may be that the aggregated pow
er of comb bined capital is fraught with
danger to the republic 1t may be that
the aggregated power of the combined
labor is perilous 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 danger to the state exist from the
com bination of either capital or labor,
requiring additional restraint or modifi-
cation of existing 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 government is not
concerned But it is the duty of the
courts to restrain those warning factions
so far as their action may infringe the
declared law of the land, that society
may not be disrupted or its peace invad-
ed and that individual and corporate
rights might not be infringed
An Injunction the Best Remedy.
"If the combination and conspiracy al
legged and the acts threatened to be done
in pursuance thereof are unlawful, it
cannot, | think, be successfully de-
MED that restraint by injunction
is the appropriate remedy 1t may be
/ true that right of action at law would
arise upon contamination of the threat
ened injury, but manifestly such remedy
would be inadequate. The threatened
the road if carried into effect
would result in paralysis of
| its business, stopping the commerce..
ebbing and flowing through seven states
of the Union, wreaking incalculable in
/ jury 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 the $4,000 men scattered
| along the ling of this railway for dis
tance of 400 miles.
! Must Not Allow Public Wrong.
! at is the peculiar function of equity
in such cases where the injury would re-
suit not alone in severe private, but in
great public wrong, to restrain the com
mission of the threatened acts and not to
send party to seek uncertain and inad-
equate remedy at law. That jurisdic-
ton rests upon settled and unassaiIable
| ground.
1T is not longer open to controversy
that a court of equity may restrain threat
ened trespass involving the Immediate or
! ultimate destruction of property. working
ire ma BILE and for which fhare