Wood County reporter. [volume] (Grand Rapids [i.e. Wisconsin Rapids], Wis.) 1857-1923, 1894-05-10
ABUSED HIS POWER
so BOATNER'S REPORT ON JENK-
ms CLAIMS.
ORDERS WE'RE BEYOND THE
COURTS JURISDICTION.
Leglslatin to Regulate the Appointment
of Receivers for Railroads and Pun
lshment for Contempt Is Much
Needed-No Impeachment Recon-
mended-Mr. Stone Dissents.

Needed-NO Impeachment Recon-
mended-Mr Stone Dissents.
Washington, d. c., May 4.-'Your
committee has no heSita ton in decIar.
ing that the orders rendered were a
gross abuse of the court, We're sup
ported by neither reason nor authority.
were beyond the jurisdiction of the
judge, and We're therefore void"
This is the meat Of the findings
against Judge James G. Jenkins by the
majority of the committee on judiciary
authorized by the house to investiga tie
the famous injunction restraining the
Northern Pacific employees from strik-
ing. This report is signed by Repre-
sentative Boatner, of Louisiana, chair
man of the subcommittee, and Repre-
sentative Terry, of Arkansas. A minor
ity report was submitted by Represen-
tative Stone, of Pennsylvania, which
upholds Judge Jenkins in a measure.
The majority report gives a detailed
history of the troubles of the Northern
Pacific railroad, relates how the road
passed into the hands of the receivers
and the action taken to reduce eX-
penses by cutting down the wages Of
the employees. The letters laid before
the committee by Attorney Miller, of
Milwaukee, are included. Then the re-
port says:
Notwithstanding the suggestion by
the employees that they desired to con-
fer, the orders We're Immediately OBJ
tanned without awaiting the results of
a conference or being in possession of
any definite information Of the inten-
ton of the employees with respect to
the schedules upon which they solicited
a conference. The original order, re-
ceived on the 10Th Of December had a
two-fold aspect. 1t reduced existing
wages and enjoined and prohibited
those who were to receive them. if
they remained in the service of the
company, from quitting the service
with or without notice SO as to cripple
the property or injure the opera tons
of the road. On being advised that if
so ordered or advised by the officers
lOnged the men would quit the service
in q body, and that under construction
placed upon the existing order (the in
junction. by those who had obtained
it, they would thereby commit a con-
tempt of court and were liable to pun
ishmeut for so doing, the officers of
the company Immediately asked for
and the Judge granted the second
order Of injunction on the 23d of De
cember. The object of this was to en-
sure to the company the compulsory
service of the operatives then in its
employ, because if under the first order
of injunction the men could not quit
without being guilty Of contempt, they
would not do so unless ordered by the
officers of the several organizations
and if these officers were prohibited
from advising the strike it was per
fectly evident that the officers so en-
Joined could not discharge this func-
ton of their office and the men could
not quit when prohibited from so do
ing by the court and not authorized to
do 50 by the organiza tons by whose
rules and regulations they were gov
erned This was the object sought to
be obtained; that the order was drawn
to effectuate, and it was signed by the
Judge with that intent, the language
Of the order and concOmitant circum-
stances left no room for doubt.
"Your committee has no hesitation
in declaring that the orders rendered
were a gross abuse of the power of the
court, were supported by neither rea-
son nor authority; were beyond the
jurisdiction Of the judge, and were
therefore void.
'The second or supplementary writ
was more plausible than the first. be
cause the judge was advised before he
rendered it Of the exact objects and
purposes sought to tie accomplished.
There was no suggestion in either Of
these letters Of any fear Of illegal acts,
but the fear from suspension of traf-
fic of an attending damage to the road
and inconvenience to the public were
the sole reasons for the action which
the judge took.
"Your committee also finds that nc
measures looking to a strike had been
inaugurated, nor does any seem tC
have been in contemplation, nor does
it appear that any of the persons
named or referred to- in the writs OF
injunction have remained in the ser
vice of the company against their will
It does appear, however, that while
they regarded the writs void, they be
lieved that so long as it was in force
they were bound to obey it under pen
atty of punishment for contempt il
they violated it, and this consideration
might have been more effective thar
they were aware Of in inducing then
to remain in the service Of the
receivers.
Your committee does not concur IL
| the opinion of the judge that the de
cisions rendered in the Toledo cases
page 81, Federal Reports, by Judges
Taft and Kicks, at all support his con
tention in the case under considera ton
| On the contrary, both Of the cases
1 clearly recognize the principle tina
courts of equity cannot enforce the