Santa Fe daily New Mexican. [volume] (Santa Fe, N.M.) 1885-1897, 1894-07-23

the necessity of consulting with Bland in
regard to it, and he, instead of denying
that he had anything to do with it, acted
upon the assumption that no such move
ment could be allowed without his as
sent.
think that this is fair and impartial
statement of the facts which may be legiti-
mately deduced from the legal and rele-
want testimony brought before me- Now
the question is, does this amount to a con-
tempt of the authority and orders OF this
court? The A., T. & S. F. railroad is now
in the hands of receivers throughout its
entire system, and those receivers have
been appointed by this court to manage
and control the road and its property, and
to operate the same in this territory. 1t
is therefore in the hands of the court,
under its direction and control; its opera
ton is the operation of this court; its
officers, its employees are officers and en-
ployes of this court and any interference
with the property or the employees is an
interference with the property and en-
ployes of the court just as much 80 as
though a person was to come into the
presence of the court here and modest the
clerk or the sheriff in any of their duties.
But the question here involved is differ
ent in its relation to the question OF a
contempt, as 1t involves the assertion of
the right of men to do certain things,
which, it is claimed, are legitimate and
for the enforcement of their rights. In
other words, the employees of this road,
or part of them, belonging to an or
ganization which is apparently legal in
its bjects and aims, in order to enforce a
claimed right for some of their brothers
in the town of Pullman, in the state of
Illinois, inaugurated sympathetic strike
and refused to be the instruments in the
further movement of Pullman cars upon
the trains of this road.
With the economic question of the re-
lation of labor and capital, with their
rights and duties as organized forces,
this court has nothing to do. Conceding
the right of labor to organize thoroughly
and efficiently, and by all lawful means to
compel the equitable distribution of the
results of the combination of labor and
capital, which 1 most certainly do, yet
the question here is purely one of law
upon the present status of affairs, and in
no way is the question at all controlled
by what ought to be the rights of either
party in theoretically just state. Fur
thermore the question is presented only
in the aspect of this railroad being in the
hands of the court, and there is to be no
consideration of what might have been
the duties or rights of these accused if
their acts had transpired while the road
was being operated by the company IT.
self.
A IF hot or in,
the hands of the court or not, have the
undoubted right to organize to better
their condition, for mutual protection or
to gain any lawful advantage, which they
might not be able to obtain otherwise.
They have the right to inaugurate what is
termed strike for the purpose of in
creasing their wages, regulating the term
of service or of obtaining any lawful con-
cession from their employers, providing
that in so doing they do not interfere
with the rights of others, or by conspir-
acy for that purpose invade contract
rights. But such strikes do not contem-
plate the doing of any affirmative action
which would interfere with the employer
filling the place of the strikers or in oper
ating the business which is being carried
on. When the striker by any overt act,
capable In it's effects of operating to the
physical injury of the employer or his
property, other than quietly leaving the
employment, undertakes to coerce action
upon the part of the employer he then
becomes a wrong -doer and is held re-
sponsible for those acts. And if those
acts are done toward property or ON
ployes of railroad in the hands of re-
| ooiu ha oote ity1ta NJ IF
the court of which the receivers are offic-
| ers.
In well-considered case, SIN re. Hig-
gins, u Fed. Rep. 49," Judge Pardee, in
passing upon a state of facts similar to
the one before me, among other things,
says: "The employees of the receivers, al
though, pro hac vice, officers of the court,
may quit their employment, as can en-
ployes of private parties or corporations,
provided that they do not thereby inten-
tionally disable the property; but they
must quit peaceably and decently. Where
they consplre and combine to quit with
or without notice, with the object and in
tent of gripping the property or its opera
tion, have no doubt that they thereby
commit contempt; and all of those who
combine and conspire with employees to
thus quit, or, as officials of labor organ
izations, issue printed orders to quit or
to strike, with an attempt to embarrass
the court in administering the property,
render themselves liable for contempt of
court"
The fact of the conspiracy to do these
things is to be arrived at not from the
statements of members of the combine,
! t>,,A nat ~ 6 h. 1.
gether with the consequences which flow
from the actions of the combination.
Now, if these accused had simply refused
to work at the call of the ephemeral
autocrat, Debs, aud left the service of the
receivers and kept off the property of the
railroad, however much Inconvenience it
might have caused, unless there was direct
proof of the conspiracy to thus leave with
the object of injuring the road, there
could have been no case against them.
But this was not sufficient; they became
aggressive, they cut off cars from trains,
they were active in enforcing the strike
as members of combination; they did
not leave the service of the receivers, but
while yet in their employment went upon
the property of the railroad and actively
obeyed the orders of an irresponsible
Jack Cade, who, evidently to exhibit his
own Importance, had started train which
has brought untold misery to thousands,
the destruction of millions of property,
the interruption of the complicated sys-
tenn Of modern commerce, the absolute
necessity of the use of the authority of
the U. s. army, scores ofdeaths, vigorous
proclamation from the president of the
nation, in its wake, and finally landed the
gentleman behind prison bars, the only
satisfactory act in the whole play; play
which, but for it's awful consequences,
would, as far as any legitimate gains to
labor is concerned, be considered the
greatest farce of the 10th century.
The direct consequences of the acts of