The Hawaiian star. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu]) 1893-1912, 1894-10-16
IN FAVOR OF STRIKERS.
DECISION OF JUSTICE HARLAN ON
THE FACTS.
Men Have a Right to Quit Work In a
Body or singiy-Invoiuntary Labor
Is Servitude.

Is servitude.
CHICAGO, Oct. LIN the United
States Court of Appeals to-day Judge
Harlan of the United States Sup eme
Court severely handled the great strike
injunction of Judge Jinkens.
Justice Harlan before giving the con-
illusions of the court reviewed the his.
tory of the celebrated Injunction. The
receivers of the road in December last
gave notice of a reduction of wages all
along the line. when the men threatened
to strike. Judge Jinkins issued the
injunction on December 10TH prevent
ing "a strike. Two days later he
amended the Injunction, making it
more stringent. The Brotherhood of
Locomotive Engineers joined with the
other labor organizations to which the
men belonged and applied to Judge
Jenkins for modification of the order.
Judge Jenkins refused~to strike out the
clause enjoining strike and the labor
unions appealed to the higher court.
The decision says that the injunction
against employees SO quitting az to Grip
pie the property or prevent or hinder
the operation of the road was equiv
alent to a command by the court that
they should remain under the active
employment of the receivers and per-
form the service appropriate to their
respective positions until they could
quit without Gripping the road. The
time when they could quit was not
indicated by the order of the court. The
decision continues:
Under what circumstances NAV the
employees of the receivers of right quit
the service of which they were en-
gagedr Much of the argument of
counsel was directed to this question.
We shall not attempt to lay down any
rule applicable to every case that may
arise between employer and employees.
If an employe quits without cause, and
in violation of an expressed contract to
serve for a stated time, then his quitting
would not be of right But the vital
question remains whether a court of
equity will under any circumstances by
injunction prevent one individual from
quitting the personal service of another.
An affirmative answer to this ques-
ton is not, we think, justified by any
authority to which our attention has
been called or which we are aware. 1t
would be an invasion of ones natural
liberty to compel him to work for or
remain in the personal services of
another. One who is placed i'll such
restraint is in a condition OF involuntary
servitude-a condition which the Su-
preme Court laws of the land declare
shall not exist anywhere within the
jurisdiction of the United States.
THE RIGHT TO RESTRAIN.
The decision then went on to discuss
whether that the property involved was
"A railway with public duties to perform
gave the court the right TO restrain men
from quitting. The receivers, the dici-
sion declares, had the right To make a
new schedule of wages and offer it to
the men with the alternative of accept
ing it or quitting the service. The men
had the night TO accept or refuse and to
quit 1t they were not willing t. work
tor less wages. The court should hav.
eliminated the words ''aud from 50 Quit
ting the service al the said receivers
with or without notice AS to cripple the
property or prevent or hinder the opera
ton of the road
But differ ent considerations must CON
troll in respect to the words in the same
paragraph of the injunction, and fem
combining and conspiring to quit, with
or without notice, the service of sal
receivers with the object and intent of
GRIPPING the property in their custody,
or embarrassing the operation of the
ma hn
ployes were unwilling to remain In the
service for the compensation prescribed
for them ty the revised schedule, it will
be the right of each on that account to
withdraw from the service.
THE RIGHT To STRIKE.
The decision discussed the right of
employees to strike as follows:
The general inhibition upon combina-
tions and coDspiracIes formed with the
object and intent of Gripping the prop
erty and embarrassing the operation of
the railroad, must be construed as re-
ferring only to acts of violence, intimi-
datlon and wrong. We do not inter-
pref the words as above quoted as en-
bracing the case of employees who,
being dissatisfied with the proposed re-
duction of their wages merely with
drew on that account, singly or by con-
certed action from the service of the
receivers, using neither force, threats,
persecution nor intimidation toward
employees who do not join them, nor
any device to modest, hinder, alarm or
interfere with Others who take or
desire to take their places. These em-
ployes having taken service first with
the company and afterward with the
receivers under general contract of
employment which did not limit the
exercise of their right to leave the
service, their peaceful co operation, as
the result of friendly argument, per-
suasion or conference among them
selves, in asserting the right of each
end every one to refuse further service
under schedule of reduced wages,
would not have been illegal or crimi-
nal, although they may have so acted
in the firm belief and expectation that
a simultaneous quitting without notice
would temporarily inconvenience the
receivers and the public.
If in tood faith and peaceably they
exercise their right of quitting the SER
vice, intending thereby only to better
their condition by securing such wages
rs they deem Just, but not to injure or
interfere with the free action of others,
they cannot be legally charged with
any loss to the trust property resulting
from their cessation OF work in conse.
quence of the refusal of the receivers to
accede to terms upon which they were
willing to remain in the service. Such
a loss, under the circumstances stated.
would be incidental TO the situation and
could not he attributed to employees
exercising lawful rights in ordinary
ways or to the receivers, in goo faith
and fidelity TO their trust, having de-
clared IA reduction of wages and thereby
caused dissatisfaction among employees
and their Withdrawal from the service
The opinion concludes by h ,lding thai