Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1894-10-02
JENKINS 0VERRULED
The Northern Pacific Railroad Decision
Partly Reversed.
THE CAUSE REMANDED.
However, to Prevent all Strikes
not Absolutely Peaceable.


cision. read by Justice Harlan and pre-
pared by him, the United States Circuit
Court OF Appeals this morning reversed
In part the famous decision OF Judge
jenkins in the case Of p. NJ. Arthur and
others against the Northern Pacific rail-
road. In which Judge jenkins decided
that men had no right to combine for a
strike under certain conditions. chief
among which was when there was intent
TO injure the property or business OF the
road. But. while the case is reversed in
part, and the cause remanded, with di-
rections to strike out certain portions OF
Judge Jenkins's opinion. the effect OF the
decision IS to prevent all strikes, unless
they be absolutely peaceable
Judges Harlan. jenkins, Bum, Gross
cup, and Woods sat to-day. The order
while prepared by Justice Harlan, was
also participated In by Judges Woods
and Bum. The gist of the opinion fol-
lows:
The questions bafore US relate to the
powers Of n court of eQuity-having GUS
tody, by receivers. Of the railroad and
other property OF a corporation-to en-
join consplracies or acts on the part OF
the receivers employees and their asso-
ciates in labor organizations. which. If
not restrained, would do irreparable mis-
chief TO such property and prevent the
receivers from discharging the duties i'm
posed by law upon the corporation.
The Injunction against employees so
quitting as TO cripple the property or pre-
vent or hinder the operation OF the rail-
road was equivalent to a command by
the Court that they should remain IN the
active employment OF the receivers and
perform the services appropriate to their
respective positions until they could with
draw without crippling the property or
preventing the operation OF the road. The
vital question Is whether q court of equity
can, under any circumstances, by injunc-
ton. prevent one individual from quit
ting the personal service of another An
affirmative answer to this question Is
not. we think, justified by any authority
TO which our attention has been called,
or of which we are aware.
INVASION OF LIBERTY.
TT would be an invasion of ones
natural liberty to compel him to.work or
TO remain In the personal service OF an
other. One who IL placed under such a
constralnt Is in condition of involuntary
servitude-a condition which the Supreme
Court of the United States declares shall
not exist. The rule. we think, is. without
exception, that equity Will not compel
the actual affirmative performance by
an employee OF merely personal service
any more than II will compel an en-
ployer to retain in his personal service
one who, for no matter what cause, il
not acceptable to him for service of
that character Undoubtedly the stimuli
taneous cess ton OF work by any con-
siderable nufAber OF railroad employees
without previous notice will have an in
furious effect. and for a time incOn-
yerience the public. But these evils.
great as they are. are to be met and
remedled by legislation, restraining alike
employers and employees. In the alb
sence Of such legislation the right of
one in the service Of a quasi-pubic cor
poration to withdraw therefrom when
ever he sees lit must be deemed so far
absolute that courts of equity cannot in
terfere. The result of these views Is that
the court below should have eliminated
from the writ of injunction the words and
from so quitting the service OF said re-
ceivers without notice so as 20 cripple the
property and prevent Hnd hinder the
operation of said railroad
1T is one thing, however, for sim
gle individual. or several individuals, each
acting on his own responsibility. to quit
work, and quite a different thing. in
the eye of the law, for many persons To
combine or consplre together with the
intent. not simply of asserting their
rights by peaceable methods. but
OF employing their united efforts
TO iniure others or the public.
1t seems entirely clear that any com
bination or conspiracy on the part OF
these employees would be- Illegal which
had for its object the crppling of
property in the hands of receivers. either
by disabling the property by obstructing
the control or management OF the pro-
perty or by using force, intimidation, or
wrongful methods against employees re-
naming in the service to induce them TO
quit the service.
COMBINATIONS MISCIIIENOUS.
Combinations Of this character disturb
the peace Of society. and are mschevous
IL the extreme. They imperil the interest
Of the public and endanger the personal
liberty and personal security Of indiviiu-
ais who. in the exercise OF the inalienable
privilege OF choosing the terms upon
which they shall labor, enter or attempt
TO enter the service of those against
whom such combinations are aimed. The
Circuit Court, therefore, properly framed
its injunction so as to restrain all acts
specifically mentioned. We are of the
opinion that the civil court properly re-
fused to strike from the writs Of injunc-
ton the words, And from combining or
conspring TO quit the service OF the re-
ceivers with the object of gripping the
property in their custody.
Justice Harlan declined to pass upon
the question whether the court had Jurs-
diction in this case under the Sherman
antitrust act Of 1So-the principal ques-
ton at issue in the Debs contempt case.
Among those who heard the opinion
read was ex-Presdent Harrison
The United States Court of Appeals has
continued the case Of Debs and the other
directors of the American Railway Union,
who took an appeal from the Woods
Grosscup Injunction, restraining them
from interfering with railroad property
during the IAcent strike, TO the next term
OF h., Of the InfenIa nj