Perrysburg journal. (Perrysburg, Wood Co., O. [Ohio]) 186?-1965, 1894-03-10
IMPORTANT LEGAL FIGHT.

MILWAUKEE, March 5.-Capital and
labor met face to face In Judge Jen-
kins' court here Friday and began what
promises to be battle over principle
that is of national Importance. 1t
was bold stand that capital, repre-
anted by the attorneys of the Northern
Pacific railroad, took-the position
that judge could by writ compel men
to refrain from quitting the service of
an employer. In opposition to this the
attorney for the United Organiza-
ton of Railway Employees took the
ground that it was the right of
every man to quit the service of any
other man, to work when he pleased
and to rest when he pleased. Involved
between these two widely divergent
lines was the question of the right of
labor to organize, to act in unison or
to in any way combine to advance its
interests.
The arguments Friday were upon the
petition to Judge Jenkins to have him
modify his famous strike order wherein
he enjoined the employees of the
Northern Pacific railway from
quitting the service of the road,
and to combat this the receivers
were represented by full array of
counsel, with ex-United States Senator
John C. Spooner at their head The
labor organizations were also well pre-
pared for the struggle, having Attorney
T. w. Harper of Terre Haute, Ind,
and Quarles Spence & Quarles, of this
city. The courtroom was crowded all
day:
Simply Wanted Better Wages,
Attorney Harper began the argu-
ments for the plaintiff. He discussed
the original and supplemental petitions
of the North Pacific receivers. which
averred that the Northern Pacific en-
ployes were all members of the eight
great railroad organizations and asked
for an injunction restraining the chiefs
of these orders from advising or order
ing the men to strike, without which
order or advice they would not strike.
He went on to say that there was
not single allegation that if every
man on the road quit work others
could not be found to take their places.
The petition did not aver that the men
would quit for the purpose of crippling
the road it simply alleged that
if they did quit it would Grip
pie the road. The Gripping of
end of, their quitting The end was
simply to get higher wages elsewhere.
Mr.. Harper said that the men had the
right to sell their services to the high
est bidder.
Judge Interrupts the Attorney.
"Who disputes that?" interrupted
Judge Jenkins, somewhat petulantly.
This order, as | understand it." re-
'If it does not then / am about
through. 1t not only enjoins them
from quitting to receive higher wages
elsewhere; it enjoins them from even
talking about quitting"
The attorney followed in this vein,
and said the liberties of the people
must be carefully guarded and the mer
had perfect right to work when they
pleased and loaf when they pleased.
After some further talk Mr. Harper
was suddenly interrupted by the court
demanding what strike was any way
and there was lively spat between
the judge and tire lawyer.
Before get through" roared the
lawyer, II will show you special act
of congress giving the men the very
rights you have enjoined them from ex
ercising."
The judge seemed disposed to argue
with the attorney, and said that one
cause of the misunderstanding be.
tween the parties in the case was
misapprehensiono of what strike really
was.
Mr.. Harper read the act of congress
providing for the establishment of ma
tional labor unions, which declared
that the men had the right to com bin,
to regulate wages, reduce the hours o
labor or improve their condition in an,
manner. What they could not do was t,
institute a boycott or keep othe
men from working, and the mel
did not ask to have those restriction
removed. He stated to the court tina
the chiefs who had been restrained
could not order q strike. All the,
could do was to consent to strilk
after two-thirds of the men on a roa
had voted to strike, and it was thei
special duty to see that two-thirds O
the men had voted to strike befor
they gave their consent.
Calls 1T Involuntary Servitude.
He then referred 70 the amendmen
to the constitution, which declare
that there shall not be slavery nor ir
voluntary servitude in the Unite
States except as punishment for crime
Here there had been no crime, and
there had been the men should hav
been tried and convicted before the
We're compelled to work. 1t was
clear case of involuntary servitude
The men were not working becaus
they wanted to or out of love for tn
receivers, but under the mandate of tn
court
MIR. ouaries' Argument.
Charles Quarles, OF this city, followe
Mr.. Harper, He had not got fairl
started before Judge Jenkins inteI
rupted with the remark: "Will yo
please point out the clause which pre-
hibits the chiefs from comforting wit