The Coconino weekly sun., 1894-05-10
SEVERELY REBUKED.
The Congressional Committee Reports on the Injunction of Judge Jenkins.


 the Injunction of Judge Jenkins. WASHINGTON, May 5,-Representative Boatner, of Louisiana, chairman of the special committee of the judiciary com mittee of the house of representatives, appointed to investigate the Northern Pacific decision of Judge Jenkins, to- day submitted in behalf of the majority of the Investigating committee re- port to the full judiciary committee.
 After reciting the circumstances leading up to the granting of the two orders of injunction by Judge Jenkins, the report declares that, notwithstand- ing the suggestion by the employees that they desired to confer, the orders were obtained without waiting the re- suits of conference or being in pos session of any definite information of the intention of the employees with respect to the schedules upon which they solicited conference. The origi- nal order, received December 19, reduced existing wages and enjoined and pro- hibited those who were to receive them, if they remained in the service of the company, from quitting the service with or without notice so as to cripple the company or injure the operations of the road. The second order, granted December 23, was to in sure to the company the compulsory services of the operatives then in its employ. The report continues:
 Your committee has no hesitation in declaring that the orders rendered were d gross abuse of the power of the court; authority; were beyond the jurisdiction of the judge, and were, therefore, void. The second or supplementary writ was more reprehensible than the first because the judge was ad- vised, before he rendered it, of the ex- act objects and purposes sought to be accomplished There was no sugges- ton in either of these letters of any fear from illegal acts, but the fear | from the suspension of traffic of an at- tending damage to the road and incon- venience to the public were the sole reasons for the action which the judge | took.
 Your committee also finds that no 
 measures looking to strike had been inaugurated nor does any seem to have been in contemplation, nor does it ap- pear that any of the persons named or referred to in the writs of injunction have remained in the service of the company against their will"
 The report discusses the rulings O! | Judges Taft and Kicks in the Toledo cases and holds that these did not de- clare strikes unlawful in themselves, but should violence be done the em- | ployer by those who had combined against him, or if others who would supply the service which the strikers had abandoned should be prevented | from doing so by violence, intimida- 1 ton, threats or other unlawful means, these acts were not only unlawful, but in most instances would constitute vio- lations of the criminal laws and be pun ishable as such. The report continues:
 "The conclusion, therefore, of the judge, that the employees of the North ern Pacific Railroad company might be forced by him by writs of injunction to protect that company from loss and the
 
 public from inconvenience by remain ing in it's service at rate of wages to which they had not given their assent is one in which we cannot concur and which in our judgment is supported by none of the decisions which he cites.
 Your committee find nothing in the testimony nor see any corrupt inten- ton on the part of the judge to render these orders. It is altogether possible that he is sincere in the conviction that he properly exercised the equity juris- diction of his court in preventing loss and damages which would have re- suited from lawful strike against the Northern Pacific Railway Co. This view of the case prevents us from recommending any proceedings lock- ing to his impeachment, but in order that there may be no further excuse for the rendition of any such orders or decrees, and that the courts of equity of the United States may not be de- ceived as to the extent of their powers in enforcing contracts for personal ser vices by legal process, we recommend the enactment of statute which will prevent them from doing so."
 The report discusses the present sys- tenn of appointing receivers for rail road companies and declares that it is dangerous and should be changed. It also holds that the powers asserted by federal judges to punish for contempt are dangerous and should be limited by law.