Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1894-10-02

appealed TO the higher court. The de-
cision says that the Injunction against
employees SO quitting as TO cripple the
property or prevent or hinder the OPP
Grafton Of the road was equivalent To
command OF the court that they
should remain In the active employ
OF the receivers and perform the service
appropriate 10 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.
Under what circumstances" says
the decision, may the employees Of
the receivers of right quit the service
in which they Were engaged? Much
of the argument OF counsel was direct
ed 10 this question. We shall not at
tempt TO lay down any rules applicable
10 every case that may arise between
employer and employee. II an eniploye
quits without cause md In violation OF
an express contract to serve for
stated time, then his quitting would
not be OF right. But the vital question
remains whether Il court of equity Will.
under the circumstances. by injunction
prevent one individual from quitting
the personal service of another.
IAN affirmative answer to the question
is not. we think. justified by any au-
thority to which our attention has
been called or OF which we are aware.
ut would be an evasion Of ones nat
ural liberty to compel him to work for
or remain in that personal service OF
another. one who is placed ia such
restraint is In n condition OF invol-
untary servitude--a condition which
the supreme law of the land declares
shall not exict anywhere within the
Jurisdiction of the United States"
The declson then went on to discuss
the fact that the property involved
was a railway with publ, duties TO
perform and gave the court the right
to restrain the men from quitting.
The receivers, the decision declares,
had the right TO make new schedule
of wages and offer II to the men with
the alternative of accepting 1t or quit
ting the service. The men had the
right to accept or resign and to quit
II they were not willing to work for
less wages. The court should have
eliminated the words land from so
quitting the service of said receivers.
with or without notice, as to cripple
the property or prevent or hinder the
operation OF the road"
"But different considerations must
control" said-Justice Harlan, sin re-
spect TO the words In the same para
graph OF the injunction and from
combining and conspiring to quit with
or without notice, the service OF said
receivers with the object and intent of
Gripping the property in their custody
or embarrassing the operation OF the
road. We have said II employees We're
unwilling to remain in the service for
the compensation prescribed by the re-
vlsed schedules 1t was the right of each
one in the account to withdraw from
the service"
The decision discussed the right Of
employees TO strike as follows; THE
general Inhibition upon combinations
and conspiracies formed with the OBJ
ject and intent Of crippling the prop
erty and embarrassing the operation of
the railroad, must be construed as re-
ferring only to acts of violence, intlm-
idatlon and wrong. We do not in
terpret the words last above quoted
as embracing 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 towards
employees who do not join them, nor
any device to modest. hinder, alarm or
interfere with others who take or de-
sire to take their places. These en-
ployes having taken service first with
the company and afterward with the
receivers under a general contract OF
employment, which did not limit the
exercise of the right to quit the SER
vice, their peaceful cooperation as the
result Of friendly argument, persuasion
or conference among themselves in as
serting the right OF each and all to
refuse further service under a schedule
OF reduced wages, would not have been
illegal or criminal, although they may
have 80 acted in the firm belief and ex-
pectation that a simultaneous quitting
without notice would temporarily in
convenience the receivers and the pub
llc If In good faith and peaceably they
exercise their right of quitting the
service, intending thereby only to bet
ter their condition by securing such
wages as 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 consequence Of the refusal
of the receivers to accept terms upon
which they were willing to remain in
the service. Such loss. under the
circumstances stated. would be incl
dental to the situation and could not
be attributed to employees exercising
lawful rights in orderly ways, or to
the receivers who in good faith and In
fidelity to their trust declared a re-
uuctlpn OF WHITES hilu thereby caused
dissatisfaction among employees and
their withdrawal from service" The
opinion concluded by holding that the
act of congress OF July 2. 1890. known
as the interstate commerce act had
no bearing ON the question before the
court The order OF Judge Jenkins is
reversed in part and the caush is re-
handed with directions to sustain the
motions to strike out to the extent in
dlcated in the opinion.
nrnu.r ,,r.ruurn urnnnr