The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1894-02-15
Iudrs Isnkins Must Exnlain.


No order Of recent years has attract ed
as much attention and excited as much
comment as that Of United States Dis
trict Judge Jenkins, Of the Seventh cir
cult, restraining the employees of the
Northern Pacific railroad from striking.
So important and far reaching is his &C
tion that the judiciary committee of the
House has taken notice Of it, and has de-
cided to report a resolution 10 the House
authorizing an investigation Of the rea-
sons for the judges course.
The order of Judge Jenkins is a long
step in advance of any previous action Of
the courts in dealing with labor organiza-
tions, and it is by no means surprising
that it should receive the attention Of
congress. The order is as follows:
From combining or conspiring together
as committees or as officers Of any So
called labor organization, with the design
or purpose of causing a strike upon the
road. and from ordering, recommending,
approving, or advising others to quit the
service Of the company Jan. |, or at any
other time, ordering or advising the en-
plOyes to strike or Join in strike Jan. l,
1894, or at any other time until the fur
Their order of the court"
Judge Caldwell, of the Eighth circuit,
was asked to issue a similar order re-
straining the employees of the Northern
Pacific within his Jurisdiction. He de-
clined to do so, holding that the courts
have no such right over the liberty of
action of the employees Of railroad or
any other corporation as Judge Jenkins
order indicates. The Northern Pacific is
in the hands of a receiver. Judge
Caldwell's position is that the employees
of road that is controlled by a receiver
are as much in the service of the court as
the receiver is. Therefore. where it is
proposed to reduce their wages, or to do
any other thing that affects their in
terests, it is the duty OF the receiver
TO afford them every opportunity 20 APP
pear in court and have their side of the
issue heard. After a full hearing, if they
decide not to accept the conclusion
reached by the court, they have a right
TO quit the service of the company in a
body, if they desire to do 50, but they
must not interfere with new men that
may be employed, and the property of the
road must be protected.
The investigation of Judge jenkins,
which the resolution of the judiciary com
mittee calls for, cannot be otherwise than
an interesting one. The ground on which
Judge jenkins will defend his or
der is not stated. 1t is
possible that he holds that
the effect of strike OF railroad employees
is to iniure the road, and that it is the
duty of the court to protect the property
of railroad that is in a receivers hands.
His position may be that while the en-
ployes of the road may leave the roads
employment, acting as individuals, they
cannot combine and do so for the reason
already stated.
If that is his position, is it a tenable
onel 1t is worthy of notice that United
States courts have been gradually extend
ing their jurisdiction in dealing with
strikes. Has Judge Jenkins gone beyond
permissible limits7 If he should be sus
tanned, labor organizations would be
shorn OF much of their power. 1t is
pretty safe to predict, however, that he
will not De sustained.