The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1894-01-02
TWO JUDGES DIFFER
Caldwell Refuses to Enter on Rec
ord All of Jenkins'S Order.
Northern Pacific Employees May Order
a Strike. but They Must Not
Interfere with the Company.

LITTLE ROCK, Ark, Jan. 1.-Apropos to
the threatened strike, which was TO have
taken place to-day on the Northern Pacific,
and the recent order of Judge jenkins, at
Milwaukee, enjoining the strike and the sub
sequent order of Judge Caldwell, at st.
Paul. the following will be of deep public
interest: The general administration Of the
receiYcrship of the Northern Pacific rail-
road devolves on the United States Circuit
Court at milwaukee,, Wis. That court is
called the primary jurisdiction, the receivers
having first been appointed and the property
turned over TO them under the orders of that
court. But it was necessary that the United
States Court in the other States through
which the road runs should confirm for this
district the action of the Milwaukee court.
This was done by filing a bill and procur-
ing ancillary receiverships in each
State. All orders of the court of primary
jurisdiction requiring to be enforced in
other States are usually entered as of
course, when presented to those courts.
a gentleman in this city, from st.
Paul, says the United States Circuit Court
in that city refused to enter that part of
the order of the Milwaukee court enjoining
the officers of the labor organization from
ordering a strike on the road or the en-
ployeS from striking on account of a re-
duction of their wages, but did enter so
much of the order as enjoined the en-
ployes, in case they struck, from interior
ing with the property or the men employed
to take their places. When Judge Cald-
well was appealed to for information on
this point he declined to say a word more
than that the writ issued by the two courts
will disclose the difference between them.
To a reporter who asked Judge Caldwell
If there was any danger of a strike on any
of the roads in his circuit in the hands of
receivers, he answered that there was not,
SO Tar as he knew. Upon being asked what
he would do if a strike was threatened on
account of u reduction of wages ON any of
the roads for which he had appointed re-
ceivers, he replied: IF receivers should
apply for leave to reduce the
existing scale of wages. before acting upon
their petition l would require them 10 give
notice of the application to the officers or
representatives Of the several labor organi-
cations to be affected by the proposed
change of time and place of hearing and
would also require them to grant such Of
fcers or representatives leave of absence
and furnish them transportation to the
place of hearing and 1 would hear both
they wanted attorneys to appear for them.
The employees on a road in the hands of a
receiver are employees of the court, and as
much in its service as the receivers them
selves, and as much entitled to be heard
upon any proposed order OF the court which
would affect the whole body of employees.
If, after a full hearing and consideration, L
found that it was necessary, equitable and
just to reduce the scale of wages, / would
give the employees ample time to determine
whether they would accept or reject the
scale. If they rejected 1t they would not
be enjoined from quitting the service of
the court, either singly or in a body. In
other words, / would not enjoin them from
striking, but if they made their election to
strike L would make it plain to them that
they must not, after quitting the service of
the court, interfere with the property or
the operation of the road or the men en-
ployed to take their places"