Watertown republican. [volume] (Watertown, Wis.) 1860-1906, 1894-04-18
DUNDY RESTORES WAGES.
Prayer of the Union Pacific En-
ployes Granted by tho Fed
eral Court.


OMAHA, Neb., April 13-Judge Dundy
has ordered the wages of Union Pacific
employees restored to the old rate. This
applies to all the employees Of the
Union Pacific whose salaries were cut
last September. The order directs
the receivers to restore the old wage
schedule $50 far as it relates to the men
represented by the petitioners and 9TH
ers similarly situated; and in cases
where the men receive less than $50 per
month, the increased pay shall com
mence on the LIST day of March last, and
in all cases where the men receive $50
per month or over the increase pay
shall commence on the LIST Of the pres
ent month"
The opinion rendered in connection
with the order was q very extensive
one, covering the entire history Of the
wage troubles on the Union Pacific
Caldwell. Judge Dundy declares that
Judge Caldwell in his famous order
misstated facts, and took malicious
pleasure in passing structures on him.
The decision affects nearly 5000 men
III the employ of the company. During
the course of his opinion Judge Dundy
said that week or SO ago the
trainmen in the employ of the
Union Pacific Company had a hear
ing before Judge Caldwell, where the
wage question was under consideration.
That case in all essential particulars was
the same as this one. A written opin-
ion was fled in the case. Some facts
are stated in the opinion-one or two
important facts are misstated, and some
l~lportagt facts are omitted entirely.
He continues:
propose to give history of the case and
the reasons that led to the making Of the or
der that has been SO extensively criticised
and denounced. This | do here and now
because it is the only opportunity have
had for stating the reasons on which
action was based. Much of the opin-
ion is devoted to the occupation
and business qualifications of the receivers
who happened to be appointed without
consultation with the seEior circuit Judge
Much of it is devoted to the alleged charac-
ter Of the injunction allowed and which was
under consideration by the Court, and
much of it is devoted to that part of the
order which authorized the receivers to put
the wage schedule in force on the 1st day of
March, 1894. The author of the
opinion seems to have taken great, if not
malicious pleasure, in passing his structures
on what had been done in connection with
the matters then under consideration. No
one probably questions the right to do So
but many, very many have questioned the
good taste and decency of the manner in
which the hearing was had and the opinions
prepared.
The reasons for revoklng my order are
not made known to us. 1t cannot well be
contended that the portion of the order in
question was contrary to law or justice or
reason, and that it was revoked for such
reasons. The only reason thought 10 exist
Tor Its revocation Is the source from which
it emanated. Hereafter if any of these
poor men have grievance they want
heard in court it may be somewhat
expensive for them to travel 500 or 1,OO0
miles from here to hunt up the source Of
power, F" the fountain head of justice be-
for leave to file a petition asking to have the
wrong redressed which right was fully &C
corded to all such by the order III question
until it was revoked