Watertown republican. [volume] (Watertown, Wis.) 1860-1906, 1894-06-13

Report Of the Minority of the Sub
Committee of the Judiciary
Committee.

Washington, D. c., June S.-Represent-
alive William A. Stone, of Pennsylvania,
to-day submitted a minority report on the
recent investigation by subcommittee
of the House judiciary committee of the
course of Judge Jenkins in issuing his
Northern Pacific injunctions. The report
is signed by Representative Stone, Rep
resentative Ray, of New York, and Rep
resentative Powers, of Vermont. After
reviewing briefly the history of the in
functions issued by Judge Jenkins, the
subsequent proceedings under them, and
the institution of congressional lnvestlga-
ton, the report says:
Uappears by the testimony taken by the sub
committee of the House judiciary committee
that the employees understood the in functions to
prevent them from leaving the service of the
railroad in any manner without the consent of
the receivers. motion was made before Judge
jenkins to modify the terms of his orders. and
in an opinion filed, which is published with the
testimony in this case he disclaims any inten
ton by his injunction to prevent any OF the en-
ployes from quitting the service of the company
In peaceabIe decent or reasonable way. In
his opinion he says: "None will dispute the
general proposition of the right of everyone to
choose his employer and to determine the time
and conditions of service or his right to aban-
don such service peaceably and decently." An
appeal to the court of appeals of that district
from these injunctonS granted by Judge Jen-
kins was taken, where the same is now pending,
with the expectation of decision within the
near future.
taking issue with Judge jenkins solely upon the
law of the case and holding that he committed
grave legal errors and was guilty OF an abuse OF
legal process, and has submitted q resolution
for adoption by the House, and also recon-
mended a statute prohibiting the enforcement of
specific performance of labor contracts by legal
process. AS the minority do not represent the
governing power of the House. they do not feel
called upon to indulge in any affirmative prop
osition in relation to the subject matter of the
report. Their recommendations would have no
power and. therefore, il is not worth while TO
The labor question, in its relation with rail
roads, is. one full of complication because of the
public interest which intervenes. In ordinary
cases between employers and employees, the
public have only a remote interest, but here
they have a direct one; not only free passage
from place to place is prevented, but supplies
are cut off and business paralyzed. On the one
hand it is for nobody's interest to cripple
the railroad owners tor injury to them,
when made systematic and general, would
be death to all improvements and hindrance
to other railroad building. On the other hand,
men are entitled to fair voice in the settlement
of the amount of which they are to be paid and
must have q reasonable combined voice. 1t
must be still further said that some method of
adjustment must be had which viii secure pub
lie traffic and the business of all people from
being interrupted by the disputes of those im-
mediately concerned. 1t can be Seen at a glance
that such question cannot be settled by mere
language or by acts of partisans, but must be
settled by the concurrence of both parties OH a
common basis. The basis of settlement will be
found when the persons interested have had the
benefit of many failures Oh both sides. We have
great hopes that basis Will soon be reached,
first by finding What the law is, and second by
agreeing to what it ought to be- We, therefore,
must decline to follow the majority into any dis
QUESTION as to what the law is. That seems to
be under control of another branch and already
in train to be sett ed authoritatively.
But the attitude of the majority is one which
ought not to pass without animadversion. If.
as the committee says, the Testimony adduced
before us fails to show any corrupt intent on the
part of the Judge" and if also lit is altogether
possible that he sincerely believes the orders
granted by him were sanctioned by law" then
the question should be LETT to the appellate
tribunal. A federal judge in the exercise of his
functions having arrived at conclusion with
out ''any corrupt intent a conclusion "he sin
cersly believes in" ought hardly be harrassed
by congressional committee, since he is quite
as likely TO be right on q point of law they.
individually we may not believe his law was
sound, and may not think it will be so pro-
nounced by the tribunal of appeal, but if he was
honest and has given his honest opinion honest
come from another source, and that the law
should be settled by the proper tribunal prior TO
legislation 1t may be that no legislation is
required and the appellate court will afford all
the relief the country needs.
If on the other hand Judge Jenkins has been,
we will not say corrupt but unduly swayed in
the exercise OF his functions by improper infu-
ences, or has stated law SO badly that it is plain
he has violated his evident duty as a holder of
the scales OF justice as an arbler between private
interests, then he should be impeached. In
word, if he has been corrupt, has so wrested
the law of the land that injustice has been done,
so evident that it carried with it the proof of
evil intent, then Congress has a plain duty to
perform. But if it be mere question of law,
then the judiciary have the duty to perform,
and Congress- by granting court of appeals,
has ended its duty. OF course when thefcaSe is
finished if the final appeal should demonstrate
that the law is defective, then remedies should
be applied: but we out TO know what the law is
before act. 1t should be finally determined
that Judge Jenkins was wrong, then the law may
not need amendment The committee think he
was wrong and yet they purpose to act as if he
were right.
So much for the legislation originally pro-
posed. AS for the resolution proposed later, we
do not see,how it could be justified. Were it de-
manded that we should vote condemnation of
any proposition that involuntary servitude
should be established by any Interpretation of
law, all sensible men would be agreed, and Re-
puhlicans most of all; but to propose that
Judge who as the majority declare, had no "cor-
rupt intent ana who sincerely believes" in
his conclusions, shall, without Impeachment,
be censured by the legislative branches of the
government, is to cOnfound all distinctions be-
tween the legislative and judicial powers and
create d side tribunal of appeal where justice
would be Tor sale to the sutton who could poll
the largest vote.