The Madison daily leader. [volume] (Madison, S.D.) 1890-current, 1894-05-05
ROASTED JENKINS.
Report or the House Judiciary Sub
committee Givento the Full Com
mittee by Boatner.
It Says That Judge Jenkins Had M
Authority to Issue the Famous
Injunction Orders.
The Rsport Also Assails the Methods
Of Appointing Receivers For Rail.
road Corporations.

WASHINGTON. May 5.--Representative
Boatner of Louisiana, chairman OF the
special committee OF the judiciary COM
mittee or the house OF representatives
appointed to investigate the Northern
Pacific decisions of Judge Jenkins, sub
mitted IN behalf OF the majority of the
investigating committee, report TO the
full judiciary committee. After recit-
ing the well known facts and circum-
stances leading up to the granting of
the two orders OF injunction by Judge
Jenkins, the report proceeds as follows:
notwithstanding the suggestion by
the employees that they desired to confer.
the orders were immediately obtained
without awaiting tile results OF con-
ference or being in possession of any
definite information of the intention OF
the employees with respect to the sched-
ules upon which they solicited confer
ence. The original order received on
the 10th OF December had two-fold
,spstt. Itreduced existing wages and
enioined and prohibited those who were
ta receive them il they remained in the
service of the company, from quitting
the service with or without notice, 30 as
% cripple the property or injure the OPP
erations Of the road. On Eeing advised
that II so ordered or advised by the OFF,
GERS Of the organizations to which they
belonged. the men would quit the serv-
ice in o body, and that under the con-
struction placed upon the existing order
(the injunction) iy those who had OBJ
tanned it, they would thereby commit
contempt OF court, and We're
liable TO punishment FOR 90 doing,
the officers dc the company immediately
asked for and the Judge granted
Tae second Order of Insancsien
ON the 28d OF December. The object OF
this was to ensure 10 the company the
compulsory services OF the operatives
then in ~ employ, because II under the
first order OF injunction the men could
mot quit without being guilty Of con-
tefnpk and would not do 20 unisss or
defs0 by the officers cf THAR several o..
gauikations and II Use officers were
prohibited from advising the strike, It
was perfectly evident that the officers
60 enioined could not quit when pro-
hibited from 90 doing by the court, and
not authorised to do 90 by the organixa-
tions by whose rules and regulations
they were governed. This was the OBJ
iect sought to be obtained; that the or
der was drawn 10 effectuate it, and 1t
was signed by the Judge with that In
tent, the language OF the order and con-
committent circumstances left no room
for doubt. Your committee has no hes
itation in declaring that the orders rem
dered were
Gross Abuse Of Power OF the Courts
were supported by neither reason nor
authority; were beyond the jurisdiction
of the judge and were therefore void.
The second or supplementary writ was
more reprehensible than the first, be-
cause the Judge was advised before he
rendered it, of the exact objects and
purposes sought to be accomplished.
There was no suggestion in either Of
these letters OF any fear from illegal
acts, bat that fear from suspension Of
traffic of an attending damage TO the
road, and Inconvenience 10 the public
were the sole reasons for the action
which the judge took. Your committee
also finds that no measures looking to .
strike had been inaugurated, nor does
any seem to have been In contempla-
tion, nor does it appear that any OF the
persons named or referred to In the
writs Of injunction, have remained In
the service OF the company against their
will. IL does appear, however, that
while they regarded the writ void, they
believed that so long as it was In force
they were bound TO obey ii.
Undsr Penalty Of Punishment
for contempt II they violated ii, and
this consideration might have been
more effective than they are aware Of In
inducing them TO remain in the service
OF the receivers. Your committee does
not concur In the opinion Of the Judge
that the decisions rendered in the TO.
ledo case. by Judges Taft and Kicks al
all support his contention In case under
consideration.
II the employees have the lawful righ,
to strike, for the purpose Of forcing
compliance with their demands, or 60
curing the highest wages and best terms
possible, that right cannot be remedied
by the fact that its exercise levied OF
the interest Of others.
No Corfapt hrosivss.
Your COMMITTEES find nothing In ths
testimony or see any corrupt intention
on the part OF the judge to render then.
orders. Il il altogether possible that b,
Is sincereNn the conviction that ke prop
erly exercised the equity jurisdictiqn b
HE co,ipk III Y,ra4essflnr hiOaa and dam