The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1894-04-11

Not being an executive officer, said
Mr.. Arnold, 81 can answer that frank
" in the affirmative"
Chief Clark was recalled, and Mr..
Stone took him in hand. The congress-
man asked if it was not the desire and
purpose of these organizations to get
in their ranks all men of their class; in
other words. to form a trust or naonop-
oily as monopoly of money or capital,
so as to control absolutely their differ
ent lines of work.
Mr.. Clark answered in the affirma
tive.
There followed quite a discussion in
which Mr.. Boatner and Mr.. Stone, of
the committee, and MIR. Clark, took
part, in which Mr.. Clark stated eXplic-
lily what the laboring men objecced to
in Judge Jenkins decision. The objec-
lions, which were two, lay against the
clause prohibiting the men to quit
work with or without notice. in any
way to cripple the road and the clause
restraining the labor chiefs from adj
V1stng and comforting with the clen.
The feature of the afternoon session,
i'm fact the chief factor of The day, was
ex-senator Spooner's examination.
Mr.. Spooner was preceded by D. G..
Ramsay. who gave testimony similar
to that of the other chiefs, relative to
methods of ordering a strike and to the
strike ordered.
The question addressed to Mr.. Spoon
er headed at once toward the author
ship of the injunction
Il partly prepared the first injunc-
tion," said Mr.. Spooner, and the or
der was probably written by counsel.
though [ do not recollect whether l as
sisted Mr. Miller in writing it."
How long did Judge Jenkins hold
q
| it was issued?" Mr.. Boatner asked.
From Monday morning until Tues
day morning.
Mr. Spooner then proceeded to tell
all he knew about the preparation and
! issuance of the order. He was tele-
graphed for to go to st. Paul ON the
! 18th of December, and there met Gen
eral Manager Kendrick. He informed
! him of the proposed reduction in
wages, which in the condition of the
road seemed necessary. Kendrick
| stated that the majority of the en-
| ployeeS of the road appreciated the con-
| dition of affairs and would not object
| to reduced wages. There was an ele-
ment, however, which threatened TO
| strike if the new schedules went into
effect, destroy the engines and damage
| the property Some OF tie men, Ken
drick said, questioned the right of the
receivers to change The wage schedule
without the authority Of the court
! Mr.. Kendrick lad not told the re-
ceivers of this states of affairs, and
Mr. Spooner advised him 10 90 SO at
| once.
The next Mr.. Spoo1er heard of the
matter was telegram to come to
Milwaukee to meet Receivers Payne
Cakes and Rouse.
Mr.. Kendrick vas there, and they
consulted about the new schedule and
the necessity for an injunction. The
new schedule Mr.. sSpO0ner had a hand
in preparing FOR submission 30 The
court. He dictated part of Il and Mr.
Miller a part. lie presented the matter
to Judge Jenkins in cha4Ibers ano
called his attention to the portion
which might be oDen to discussion bu
which he (Spooner) told the judge was
sustainable and referred t. Judge Par
dee's decision - forfify his position
He told the judge of the threatentl
trouble by men along thu road because
of the new schedule. The Judge tool
the matter under advisenlaa. and or
Tuesday issued tho order q 5 prayed.
Mr.. Boatner. asked if it was the com
mon practice in western courts fol
judges to issue permanent injunction:
eX- parte in chambers, and Mr.. SpoOne
replied that it was not the practic
anywhere, and that the injunction al
; lowed was not permanent nor was i
meant to be.
!, Mr.. Spooner was in the chair TO
) more than an hour. His explanation
} of the order and what it was mean
to accomplish put a different phase up
on it from what the labor chiefs eX
pressed.
Mr.. Curtis, one of the counsel for tn
receivers was the last witness calleC
before adjournment His testimony wa
unimportant.