The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1894-03-03
ColIoquy Between Counsel for Labor
Leaders and the Author of the
Famous Injunction.
HIS HONOR THREATENED
By the Terre Haute Man, Who
Shook His Fist at the Court.
The Judge and the Attorney Differed
on the Definition of the Word
'.Strike"-A Disclaimer.

MILWAUKEE, March 2. = Attorney
Harper, of Terre Haute. to-day did what
no other lawyer has ever had the temerity
to do in the federal court here. He actual
ly shook his fist at Judge jenkins in a
threatening manner. The Judge to-day
listened to arguments on the application OF
Chief Arthur, of the Brotherhood of Loco
motive Engineers; Chief Sargent, of the
Brotherhood of Firemen, and other labor
leaders for modification of the order
issued by Judge Jenkins prohibiting the
employees of the Northern Pacific from
entering upon a strike. The receivers were
represented by General McNaught, ex-
Senator Spooner and George p. Miller.
Receivers Payne and Oaks were in court,
as were Messrs. Arthur, Sargent, Ramsey,
Clark, Wilkinson Wilson and the other
labor leaders. Robert Schilling. with a
bevy of local labor men, occupied seats on
the spectators bench. There were also a
number of attorneys and prominent busi-
ness men in court as spectators
T. w. Harper, of Terre Haute Ind,
opened in behalf of the petitioners. Dur
ing his argument Mr.. Harper had a hot
set-to with the court. Judge Jenkins inter-
rupted him at one time and asked what he
meant by the term striking"
'It is simply quitting of work." replied
Mr.. Harper.
mo, sir" said Judge Jenkins.
''Then, what is striker retorted the
attorney.
ut is quitting for the purpose of en-
forcing certain conditions" replied the
Judge.
Mr.. Harper could not agree with the
Judge, and did not seem to be very much
awed by the dignity of the court which
usually keeps even the greatest attorneys
very careful and courteous.
But 1 am not done with you," shouted
Mr.. Harper, shaking his fist at the Judge.
Il will show you a special act Of Congress
which gives the men the very rights which
you have enjoined them from exercising"
He then resumed his argument.
Attorney Charles Quarles followed in an
argument on the application of the federal
law to the point at issue. Under the nat
ural construction of the language Of the
order the restrictions were very broad. 1t
restrains the men from striking from any
and all causes, present and future, and
it would not even let the chiefs of the rail-
road orders confer with the men.
''Will you please point out the clause
which prohibits them from so conferring
with the men?" asked Judge Jenkins,i who
exhibited an unusual amount of feeling
throughout the argument and was fire.
quently vehement in his remarks.
Mr.. Quarles then gave his definition of
a strike, and cited several authorities to
sustain his definition.
The judge said there was never any in
tention to prevent the men from quitting.
That was their legal right, and if they
wanted to they could stop work singly or
in a body, and go to Texas, if they wished.
THAT is all we want" shouted man
from the rear of the court room Court
soon afterwards took a recess till afternoon.
When attorney Quarles resumed his ar
gument in the afternoon he quoted a defini-
ton of q strike given by one of the labor
chiefs present, Mr.. Clark, which denied
that force and intimidation have anything
directly to do with the strikes.
Judge Jenkins asked Mr.. QuarleS If ii
would be legal for men to conspire against
the receivers to cripple the property.
I'm some cases." replied Mr.. Quarles, 81
think it would be, because it is not the
primary object of the combination to Grip
Mr.. Quarles went on to argue that the
court had no right 10 interfere with the
right of men to peaceably persuade other
men to quit work. This court may extend
It's jurisdiction, but not it's power" he said
"It has not the power to change rights
no matter what hardshipS may result from
the conflict. The police power is the only
one which can interfere here"
]. II. McNaught opened for the receivers
He said the injunctional order had been
misunderstood. 1t was not intended to
he remembered that he asked the court to
make the writ read that the men could not
quit at any time regardless of consequences
and the court refused to include that Be
fore Mr.. McNaught had concluded court
adjourned until tomorrow.