St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1894-04-07

penalty I0r c0Htumacy does not go to
the owner OF the property injured. Such
contempt is deemed a public wrong, and
the flne enureS 10 the government. The
injunction goes In prevention 0f wrong
tn property and injury 10 the public
welfare: the fine II, punishment of con.
tumacy. The authority to issue the
writ is not impaired by the fact
mat, independently of the writ, punish
inent could be visited upon the wrong
doer Tor interference with property in
the possession of the court. The writ
reaches the inchoate conspiracy to ill.,
Jure and prevents the contemplated
wrong. The proceedings in contempt
are eX-post TactO. Furnishing for a wrong
eifected. Asserting then, as undoubted,
the right OF the court by Its writ to re-
strain unlawful interference with the
operations of this railway, turn my
attention to the objections urged to
particular paragraphs of the writS. 1t
is cOntended that the restraint imposed
by that part of the original writ to which
objection is made by this motion, in
/ derOgatiOn Of common right, and an uu-
lawful restraint upon the individual to
work for whomSOever he may choose,
TO determine the conditions upon which
he Will labor. and to abanuon such EN-
plOyment whenever he may desire. In
needful to look to the conditions which
gave riSe-to the
ISSUANCE OF THE WRIT.
Here was railway some 4. 400 miles in
length, traverSing some seven states OF
the Union. engaged in interstate com.
merce, carrying the mails Of the United
States. This vast property was i'll tine
custody OF the court, through its receiv-
erS in trust, to operate it, to discharge
the public duties imposed upon it, to
keep it 90 ing concern, until the time
should come TO hand it over To its right
full owners. with all public duties dis
charged, and with its franchise, rights
and privileges uninpaired.
The receivers employed i'll the opera
ton OF the property some $4,000 men.
these men are pro llac vice Ulcers of
the court, and are responsible to the
court for their conduct. The petitions
presented to the CORTLAND the facts
are confessed by this In0tion-that some
of the men threatened to suddenly quit
the service OF the road, and to compel,
by force and violence, other employees.
who were willing to continue in
the service, to quit their employ
ment; that by organized effort, and
by force and intimidation, they would
prevent others from taking service uu-
der the receivers in place OF those who
might leave such service, and would,
therefore, as means of forcing
the receivers to submit to the
terms demanded, disable the receivers
from operating the road and diScharg-
Ing their duty to the public as common
carriers, and would so conduct them
selves by disabling locomotives and
Gals, and taking possession of the prop
erty of the receivers, as to destroy and
prevent its use and hinder and embar-
rasS the receivers in its management;
thereby causing incalculable loss to the
trust property, and intiicting great in
convenience and hardship upon the
public. The restraining portion of the
writ com planned of. aud now under COLI
sideration, prohibited these men from
combining and conSDlring to quit this
service with the object and intent of
crippiing the property of the. receivers,
road, and from
CARRYING THAT CONSPIRACY
into effect. The writ was in the pre-
,vention of the mischief asserted. In no
respect, as l conceive, does that portion
of the writ interfere with Individual
liberty. In the case under c0nsidera-
ton the receivers sought to change the
terms and conditions of service. The
employees had the right, of course, to
decline service OIL the terms proposed.
Notwithstanding the public character of
their service, upon notification of their
declination, at time prior to Jan. 1,
1894, reasonable in view of the service
in which they were engaged, they had
the undOubted right to abandon their
employment upon that day. That. how
ever, 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 employees, in
good faith. to abandon their employ
ment. The restraint imposed was
with references 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 cOnspir-
acv. The second branch of the action
has reference to the writ of injunction
issued upon the supplemental petition
of the receivers, restraining any COM
blnatlUn or conspiracy having for its
purpose the Inauguration of a strike
upon the lines of the railway operated
by tue receivers, from ordering. adj
viSing or approving. by communication
OF instruction or otherwise, the em-
plOyes of the receivers to join in
strike. This part of the motion pre-.
Sents the issue whether a strike is law
ful. The answer must largely depend
upon the proper ditinition of the term.
The judge then cited the various de-
tinitionS of the word strike. and dweit
upon strikes in general. He said he
knew of no peaceful strike. and that
NO STRIKE WAS EVER HEARD
OF that was or could be successful, IN.
accompanied by intimidation or vIo-
lence. Continuing, he said: Zone
clause of the supplemental injunction
oh II,
warranted. That clause is. And from
ordering, recommending, approving or
advising others to quit the service of
the receivers OF the Northern Pacific
railway on Jan. /, 1884. or at any other
time
in fairness this clause must be re-
ceived in the light of the statements of
the petitions. 1t was therein asserted
to the court that the men would not
strike unless ordered so TO do
by the executive heads OF the
that the men would obey such
orders, instead of 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, approve
or advise" was to meet the various
forms OF expression under which, by
the constitution or bylaws of these or
ganizatious, the command was cloaked
as. for instance, in the one organiza-
ton the chief head advises strike;
i'll another he approves" strike; in
another he recommends" .he quitting
of employment. Whatever terms may
be employed. the effect is the same. 1t
is command which may not be disre-
garded, under penalty of expulsion from
the order and of social OStracisln. This
language was employed to fortify the
restraints of the other portions of the
writ, and to meet the various DISCUSSES
under which the command is cloaked.
1t was so created out of
ABUND ANT CAUTION,
that the meaning of the court might be
clear, that there should be No unwar-
rantable Interference with this prop-
prty no Intimidation no yitjenop No