Arizona weekly journal-miner., 1894-07-11
HELD FOR CONTEMPT.
The Text of Judge Hawkins Opinion in the Cases of Jackson, Lynch and
 Salina.
The Acts Of Defendants Held to Have Been
 Intimidation Within the Law.

uccIS duu employees or the receivers of the Atlantic X Pacific Railroad Company, ou the 18th of June, 1891. at Winslow, Arizona, in the opera tion of said road.
 It appears from the evidence that on the morning of the 18th, at To o'clock, the whistle blew, and the men m the machine shops went out. This was preconcerted arrange ment and the strike began. Then respondents went to the yard and found No. 32 making up in three sections, run by said engineers. Jackson and Lynch told Moore to ''go to the house. Moore was on his engine. Moore said he concluded from the remarks made by these parties that he didn't know what they might do. He didn't care to take any chances. There was a crowd around the depot and train. when Jackson said to Hennessev: Il wouldn't go out if l were you. Hennessey said why; Jackson said Moore had gone to the house, and | might aswell go. Hennessey repeats that Jackson, Lynch and Salina told him to go to the round house, and also that they asked him not to go out. Hennessey concluded it better net to go out because Jackson. Lynch and Salina had requested him not to. Some one cut the engine loose from the train by pulling out the pins and throwing them away.
 do not deem 1t necessary 10 go over the entire testimony; it is evi- dent that a strike was going on around Winslow, and large number of strikers were around this No. 32 freight train at the time the respond ents were making use of the expres- sions l have quoted, and one of them offers as an excuse for being there that he thought cool heads ought to be on hand to prevent any trou- ble. The telegrams introduced show that the employees were over awed.
 All of this property is in the hands of receivers appointed by this Court, and any unlawful interfer- enee herewith by strikers is un- occasionally y a contempt of Court. This has been repeatedly so held.
 In re Wabash k. Co.,, 24 Fed. 2l7.
 U. s. vs. Kane, 3 Fed. 74S,
 and 1t is unnecessary to quote any others.
 Now, the respondents were on a strike; they claim they did not intend to intimidate the engineers who were ready to go out, yet they go to the yards where a large crowd is congregated and by the use of words prevent them from going out. While the words may not be threats, take the words themselves, the fact that there was a crowd around; some one in the crowd called out, If you knew when you were we'll off, you would do as you were told" That no one had told them anything except these respondents; that some one had cut loose the engines.
 It would be doing violence to common sense not to hold that there was a demonstration to amount to an intimidation of the employees desiring to work, and the acts oi the parties around to an unlawful interference with the operation oi the property in the hands of the receivers.
 Parties have the right to quit the service of the receivers singly or bv preconcerted design, so 1t has been held, provided they do not violate any contract or interfere with others.
 In this case, if respondents had simply quit and gone away, they could do so; it might have been harsh treatment of their employers, if they do so without cause; but when they do quit, by Preconcerted design, al an unusual hour, and go at once to the station yards, where they had no business whatever, and use the language imputed to them to =nplovees ready to work and continue to earn the very excellent wages being paid to them, then they are interfering with others. And the evidence shows that these em- uloveas are members of another department, and no particular friends of the respondents, merely acquaintances; so it would be doing violence to hold that these parties were trying merely to induce friends to quit work. No other conclusion can bs reached than that the res pondants Jackson, Lynch and Salina were by their acts unlawfully inter feriug with the receivers in the operation of the property in the hands of the Court, and violating the order of the Court placing such property in the hands of receivers Ther are, therefore, guilty of con tempt.
 It is the absolute duty of courts Go protect property, and they should perform such duties. It is true the rep0ndents have used no actual v.ol nee; of course. if they had, l would have had them answer to the Court for crimes. Every man should ober the law. It is duty he owes his Country. his family and himself
 nave listened to the evidence taken on the trial of Jackson, aud taken the same evidence in eases against the other three, after offer ing Ca allow them to introduce any other and they say they have none, and l have examined same to see regarding conduct of the defend ants
 There seems to be no further evidence against Grant than that he was present in the crowd; l have ordered him discharged.
 The next case l will notice is Mir. Sslua. He appears to have been with Jackson and Lynch, and when Moore wanted to get names of those present, he went away and seemed to conclude that there might be something wrong in what was being done.
 lu regard to NIT. Lynch, he i'm presses me as a man who did not tHok he was doing wrong, but his ccud ct and acts materially aided iH keeping this train from going