Rock Island Argus. (Rock Island, Ill.) 1893-1920, 1894-04-07
RIGHT TO DECLINE SERVICE.


Could All Abandon the Work at Once
After Due Notice.
The judge said that the writ complained
of prohibited these things. but it did not
interfere with individual liberty. Proceed.
ing ne said: "In the case under considera-
ton the receivers sought to change the
terms and conditions of service. The EN-
ployes had of course the right to decline
service upon the terms proposed. Not
withstanding the public character of the
service, upon notification of their teciina-
ton at a time prior to Jan. I. 1894. reason
able in view of the service in which they
were engaged, they had the undoubted
right to abandon their employment upon
that day. That, however. is not the case
presented to and dealt with by the court.
Nor does the rectitude of the writ of
injunction rest upon any mere right of
the employe in good faith to abandon
their employment The restraints i'm.
posed We're with reference to combining
and conspiring to abandon the service
with the object and intent of crippling the
property. Its Office was to restrain the
carrying into effect of the conspiracy.
THE second branch of the motion has
reference to the writ of INDUCTION issued
upon the supplemental petition of the re-
ceivers, restraining any combination or
conspiracy having for its purpose the in
auguration of a strike upon the lines Of
the railway operated by the receiv.
ars
This part of the motion presents the
issue whether strike is lawful. The
answer must largely depend upon the
proper definition OF the term" The judge
then cited the various definitions OF the
word strike and dwelt upon strikes in gen.
eral. He said he knew of no peaceful
strike and that no strike was ever heard
of that was or could he successful unac-
companied by intimidation or violence
Continuing he said: Zone clause of the
supplemental injunction has been charac-
terized as wholly unwarranted. That
clause is, and from ordering, recon-
mending, approving or advising others to
quit the service Of the receivers of the
Northern Pacific railway on Jan. !, 1894,
or at any other time
In fairness this clause must be read in
the light of the statements of the petition.
1t was therein asserted to the court that
the men would got strike unless ordered
so to do by the executive heads of the
| national labor organizations, and that
following the direction of the court The
| clause IS specially directed to the chiefs OF
the several labor organizations. The use
OF the words, order, recommend, APP
prove or advise was TO meet the various
forms or expression under which by the
constitution or bylaws of these organiza-
ton the command was cloaked.
For instance, in the one Organization
the chief head advises strike, in another
he approves a strike, in another he
recommends the quitting of employment
Whatever terms may b. employed the eff
feet is the same. Ii is command which
may not be d:sregarded, under penalty OF
expulsion from the order and of social
ostracism. This language was employed
to fortify the restraints of the other por-
lions of the writ and to meet the various
DISCUSSES under which the command is
cloaked
cit was perhaps unnecessary, being
comprehended within the clause restrain
ing the heads of these organizations from
ordering, recommending, or advising a
strike. It is said, however, that the clause
restraints an individual from friendly adj
vice to the employees as a body or indi-
vidually, as to their or his best interest in
respect of remaining in the service of the
receivers. Read in the light of the petit
lions upon which the injunction was found.
ed ] do not think that such construction
can be INDUCED by any fair and impartial
mind.
The language of . writ of injunction
should, however, be clear and explicit, aud
IL possible above criticism as to its mean
ing. Since, therefore, the language of this
particular phrase may be misconceiyed
and the restraint intended is in my iudp.