New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1894-10-02
JUDGE JENKINS REVERSED.
CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH EMPLOYEES
MAY STRIKE.
COMBINING OR CONSERVING TO QUIT WORK
WITH INTENT TO INJURE PROPERTY STILL

WITH INTENT To lNJi M ffNDf ri'i ''''''''
HELD TO BE UNLAWFUL. HOWEVER.
Chicago. oct lin long decision read by Justice
Harlan and prepared by him, the United states
Circuit Court OF Appeals this morning reVefse' q"
par, the famous decision Of Judge jenkins. IN the
case of T. NJ Arthur oilers against the Northern
Pacific Railroad. in which Judge jenkins declared
tina, the men had right TO combine ioT d s'''Ne
under certain conditions. chief among WHO" WAS
when there was intent TO njure the properly OF
business OF the road. Although the Gaze is reVersei
in part and the cause remanIel with directions 70
strike out certain portions OF Judge Jenkinss opn-
ION the effect Of the decision is prevent al strikes
unless they be absolutely peaceable Judges Harlan
jenkins Bunn Grosscup and Woods sat to-day
The order. while prepared by Justice Har.a'. was
also participated in by Judges WOODS ana n"''''
The gst OF the opinion fo..ows:
The questions before us relate 70 the powers o! a
court % equjy-havins custody BY receivers OF 'he
railroad and other property OF nnn ,be
part u the receivers employees AND ther assDCt.a.
In labor organizations which. II not ies r, ar
would do rrcpaTab.e mischief 10 such property, d'II
prevent the receivers from dischatshs '"- ""'e'
The Injunction against employees so quitting as TO
grippe The property prevent hinder the operation
of the railroad was equivalent to command by me
cour, that they should remain In the active en-
poyment OF the receivers and perform inc ser!ies
appropriate their respective positions uniL they
could withdraw without gripping the Property or
preventing the operation o. the roae. ne ~.
question Is whether court Of equity VII, unaer
am circumstances by Injunction prevent on m
dividual from quitting the personal service OF an
other. An affirmative answer to tnls que. Uuh , ~
not we think. justified by any authority to which
our attention has been called. or Of when we arr
aware Il would be invasion OF ones naturai
liberty 20 compel him to work or to remain ~ elg
under such restraint Is IN condition OF inVouL!"ry
servtute-a condition which the supreme court OF
United states declares sha.. not exist Ins rue
not compel the actual affirmative performance ny
than II, vii compel an employer to retain In his pr
sOnal service one VINO. Tor no matter VIVA S'''r'
Ter Undonhted.y the simultaneous cessation OF Work
by any considerable number OF railroad employees
ana tcr a time Inconvenience. the public. Bu, these
evils great as they are arc to ot me, ana reh,'a. n
p'oyers In the Absence OF such legislation the
hight Of one in the service o. qlisipuph cotp'fa
must be deemed 50 Ear absolute that courts OF
ThS result Of thc.e views is that the Court below
should have eliminated from the Wit the words
ccivers with or without notice u cripple the
property prevent hinder the operation Of said
IL is one thing however for a single Individual or
several individuals each acting on his own rcsonsi-
billy. 70 quiz work. ana qHlie Inherent 'h,hS N
the eye OF the Law for many persons T. combine or
c)nspire together with the intent. not simply ~
asserting men rights 1y Lch.rab.e the'ho", uu' ..
employing their united efforts q inJurr others OF
the pubic II seems entirely clear nat any com,
bination or conspiracy on ne PAX OF mes" .ihpioyeS
would be Illegal which had for It's object the cfip-
ping u property the hands = receivers either by
disabling property. by ohe'ruciing the control or
management % the properly or by using force IN
limitation or wrongful methods GEh,nE 'IlpIoyr'
remaining In the service 70 induce them - quit the
service. Combinations ~ this character disturb the
peace Of society and mischicyOui IN the eN-
irene They !mperi. the Interests Of the public ana
endanger the personal liberty and personal srcur,y
OF individuals VINO Ia the exercise OF the nallenab'
privilege OF choosing the terms upon which they
snail abor enter or attempt 10 enter the service OF
those against whom sucn combinations are aimee
The Circuit Court therefore, properly framed us m
junction as - restrain all acts specifically men
TONED We OF the opinion that the civil court
properly refused strike from the wits OF inlhnc-
lion the words, and from combining or coaspirng
to quit the service ~ receivers win the object OF
crippng the property In their custody.
Justice Harlan declined 10 pass upon the question
whether the had jurisdiction In this case under
the Sherman Antitrust Of lSo-the principal
question at issue in the Debs cmpt case Among
those who heard the opinion read was eH-Ircsl leht
Harrison, who f. here cOunsc In the case ~ ~"
Cincinnati. Hamilton and Dayton road against Nc
Ncan