The record-union., 1894-05-05
Special to the REcoRD-USroS.

Special to the REcoRD-UNIoN.
WASHINGTON, May 4.-Representative
Boatner, Chairman of the special COM
mittee of the House Judiciary Commit
tee appointed TO investigate the Northern
Pacific decisions of Judge Jenkins, to-
day submitted to the full Judiciary Com
mittee a majority report of the special
committee.
The report was discussed for two hours
| by the full committee. The report was
made the special order for the full COM
mittee next Tuesday.
Representative w. A. Stone OF Penn
sylvania, the Republican member of the
committee, dissents from the majority re-
port, on the ground that it is an attempt
to make judicial ruling, but he has not
yet submitted minority report.
After reciting the well-known facts and
circumstances leading UP to the granting
of the two orders of injunction by Judge
Jenkins, the majority report proceeds as
follows:
Notwithstanding the suggestion by
the employees that they desired to confer,
| the orders were Immediately obtained
without waiting the results of a confer
ence or being in possession of any def
mite information OF the intention of the
| employees with respect to the schedules
upon which they solicited conference.
/ The original order received on December
| 10th had twofold aspect. 1t 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
property or lnjure the operations of the
road. ON being advised that if so ordered
or advised by the officers of the organiza-
ton to which they belonged the men
/ should quit the service in body. and
under the constructions placed upon the
/ existing order (the injunction) by those
who had obtained it, they would thereby
commit a contempt of court, and were
| liable to punishment for SO doing, the
officers of the company Immediately
asked for and the Judge granted the sec
| ond Injunction December 2Ist. The
| object OF this was to insure to the COM
pany the compulsory views of the opera
tives then in its employ, because under
the first order of the injunction the men
could not quit without being guilty OF
| contempt, and would not do so unless
ordered by the officers of their several
organizations, and if these officers were
| prohi bited from advising the strike it was
perfectly evident that the officers so en-
| Joined could not discharge this function
| of their Office and the men could not quit
when prohibited from so doing by the
| court, and not authorized to do so by the
organization by which rules and regula-
| tions they were governed. This was the
/ object sought to be obtained. That the
! order was drawn to effectuate it, and it
was signed by the Judge with that intent,
the language of the order and the COM
infant circumstances cleft no room for
doubt.
"Y our committee has no hesitation in
| declaring that the orders rendered were a
gross abuse of the powers of the court,
were supported by neither reason nor au-
| thority; were beyond the jurisdiction of
the Judge, and were, therefore, void. The
second or supplementary writ was more
reprehensible than the first, because the
order was advised before he rendered it
of the exact object and purposes sought
| to be accomplished. There was no sug-
gestion in either of these letters Of any
| fear of illegal acts, but the fear from the
| suspense of traffic, or an attending dam
age to the road and Inconvenience TO the
| public were the sole reasons for the
action which the Judge took.
"Your committee also finds that no
! measures looking to a 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 re-
| ferred to in the writ of Injunction
have remained in the service Of the COM
| pany against their will. 1t does appear,
however, that while they regarded the
wrlts void, they believed so long as it
was in force they were bound under it to
the penalty of punishment for contempt
! ii they violated it, and this consideration
/ might have been more effective than they
were aware of in inducing them to re-
main in the service of the receivers.
Your committee does not concur in
| the opinion of the Judge that the decision
rendered in the Toledo cases, page 81,
Kicks, ct al, support the contention in
| the case under consideration. On the
! contrary, both of the cases clearly recog-
nize the principle that courts of equity
can not enforce the specific performance
of contract for personal service by
writs of injunction and other processes,
! but that in such cases the remedy is at
clearly recognize the right of the laDoring
people, as means of settling their labor
| at higher price, Of coercing employers
| to accede to their demands. In detecting
the lawfulness of proceeding of this
kind, the Judges justly take the law as
sustaining the employe, and inconveni-
ence to the general public can not be con-
sdered. If employees have the lawful
right TO combine in a strike for the pur-
pose OF forcing compliance with their
demands or securing the highest wages
and best terms possible, that right can
not be remedied by the fact that It's exer-
| else levied on the interests of others. It's
/ principle applies, of course, only to those
strikes which exist in the withdrawal
from service by concerted combination.
| Should violence be done to the person or
property of the employer by those who
/ have com bined against him, it others
would supply the service which the strik-
ers have abandoned and are prevented
/ from doing SO by violence, Intimidation,
threats or other unlawful means, these
acts are not only unlawful, but in most
instances would constitute violations of
the criminal laws, and be punishable as
such.
/ THE conclusion of the Judge that the
employees of the Northern Pacific Rail-
road Company might be forced by him
by writs of Injunction to protect that
company from loss and the public from
Inconvenience by remaining in its serv-
ice 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 de-
cisions which he cites.
Your committee find nothing in the
testimony nor see any corrupt intention
on the part of the Judge to render these
orders. 1t is altogether possible he was
sincere in the conviction that he properly
exercised the equity jurisdiction OF the
court in preventing loss and damages
which would have resulted from law
| full strike against the Northern Pacific