The morning call., 1894-04-07
MUST NOT STRIKE.
Jenkins Stands by His
Order.
LABOR GETS A SETBACK.
Which Attorney Quarles Says
Was Expected.
GRAVE PERIL OF COMBINATIONS.
Courts Cannot Stand for the Rights
of Either Capital or
Labor.

MILWAUKEE, April 6.-The decision of
Judge Jenkins upon the petition to modify
his famous strike order III the Northern
Pacific receivershp matter, which has
been expected for some time. was handed
down to-day. The courtroom was crowded
when Judge jenkins took his seat, and the
Judge had m ore attentive audience while
he read the elaborate decision than usu-
ally honors the reading of decisions in the
United Sta ties court. 81. c. Payne was
the only one of the receivers present in
court. He was accompanied by George
P. Miller, the local attorney for the re-
ceivers. The only representative of the
la Dor organization was Charles Quarles.
1t took the Judge nearly two hours to
read the decision, anG at the con cluson
court adjourned. All the attorneys pres
ent pronounce the decision a comprehen-
sive and mastery ANALYSIS of the strike
problem. Attorney Quarles. of course
was not pleased with it, but said he had
anticipated the decision from the time the
petition for modification was argued. The
case will be appealed.
Before adjourning court Judge Jenkins
said that as the question involved was
highly important one, and as il was desir-
able that 1t should be reviewed by a court
of last resort, he would gladly Cooperate
with counsel in taking steps to secure an
appeal. Justice Harlan. he said, would
sit with the appellate court in Chicago ON
May 81, and the appeal might be taken so
as to have the case decided at that time.
The decision of Judge Jenkins. the SUBJ
stance of which is given below, grants
technical modification of the supplemental
order asked for by the petitioners. while it
recites more strongly the position taken In
the injunction order. The order to strike
out the offensive clause in the supple
mental injunction. taken in connection
with what goes before. is a delicately
poi1 ted rebuke to the counsel for the petit
tloner for quibbling over the ambiguity OF
a clause, the substance of which is clearly
and strongly stated in preceding sentences.
The decision upon the two propositions is
elaborateIy elucidated These are the
illegal purpose and character of strike
which the order was to prevent. and the
authority of the court to prevent aud pun
ish Illegal acts.
The decision modifies the injun ctional
orders by striking out the clause which
reads: And from ordering, recommend
ing, approving or advising others to quit
the service of the Northern Pacific Rail
way on June /, 1894. or at any other time"
All other notifications were refused. The
petition asks for the modification of the
injunction of December By expungng
the words, land for com bning and con-
spring to quit. with or without notice,
the said receivers, with the object aud in
oF linz fha H., h1t.
custody or embarrassing the operation of
the road, and from so quitting said re-
ceivers with or without notice as 10 Grip
pie the property or to prevent or hinder
the operation of said road" The object
of the motion was to bring to direct issue
before the court the question whether the
court can grant injunc;ions to restrain en-
ployes from striking.
Judge jenkins said: I'm the discussion
of the important and interesting question
presented by the motion 1t is not the
province of the court to assume part in
the contest between capital and labor,
which it is asserted is there involved. 1t
may be that the aggregated power of
combined capital is fraught with danger
TO the republic; it may be that the aggre-
gated power of combined labor is perilous
to the peace of society and the rights of
property. yet 1t doubtless is true that it Is
contest in which the rights of both have
been invaded and that each has its
wrongs to be redressed. If danger to the
State exists from a combination of capital
or labor, it is within the province of the
Legislature to determine the necessary
remedy; but it is the duty of the courts to
restrain these warning factions as far as
their action may infringe upon the de.
clared law of the land, that society may
not be disrupted. If the com animation and
conspiracy, as it is threatened to be
formed in pursuance thereof, is unlawful
1t cannot. think, be successfully denied
that to restrain by injunction is the appro-
pirate remedy. The interference with the
operations Of the threatened railway If
carried into effect would result in para
lying business, the stopping of commerce
ebbing and flowing through seven States
of the Union, working incalculable injury
to property and causing great public priva-
tions. Compensation could be obtained
ouly through the multiplicity Of suits
against the 1900 men scattered along the
line of the railway for a distance Of 444O