St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1894-05-05
JUDGE JENKINS IS SCORED
R0ATNER'S INVESTIGATING COMMIT
TEE CTVES HiR A ROAST
THE NORTHERN PACIFIC CASE.


The Honesty of the Milwaukee,
Jurist. Is Not. Questioned, and
No impeachment Is RecnM-
mended = Legislation Is De-
nanded Which VIII Restrict
the Powers of Federal Judges.
WASHINGTON. May 4 The majority
report Of Representative Boather's
committee to investigate the action OF
Judge Jenkins in making his famous
Northern Pacific strike order was pre-
scented to the house today. AS fore
Swallowed, it scores the judge for his
action, holding that he was not justi-
fed. However, it expresses the ballet
that he was honest III what he did. and
therefore does not recommend inpeach-
ment proceedings. The report, how
ever, calls attention to alleged abuses
of the courts in their exercise OF the
power of appointing receivers and pun
lshing for contempt, and suggests legls-
latiOn
TO CORRECT THESE ABUSES.
After reciting the well-known facts
and circumstances leading up to the
granting of the two orders of injunction
by Judge Jenkins. the report proceeds
as follows:
Notwithstanding the suggestions of
employees that they desired to confer.
the orders were obtained without await
ing the results of conference, or being
iU possession of any definite informa-
ton of the intention of the employees
with respect to the schedules. The
Original.order, received Dec. 10, had
twOfold aspect. 1t reduced existing
wages and enjoined and prohibited
those who were TO receive them, ii they
remained in the service of the company,
from quitting the service with or with
out notice so as to cripple the property
or injure the operations of the road. On
being advised that il so ordered or adj
vised by the officers of the organizations
to which they belonged the men would
quit the service in body, and that un-
der the construction placed upon tho ex-
listing order Qhe injunctioD by those
who had obtained it, they would thereby
commit contempt of court and were
LIABLE TO PUNISHMENT,
for so doug. the officers OF the company
immediately asked for, and the judge
granted, the second order OF Injunction,
Dec. %. The object of this was to iil-
sure to the company the compulsory
services of the operatives, because UNI
der the first order of injunction the
employees 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 Off
GERS were prohibited from advising the
strike, 1t was perfectly evident that the
officers SO enjOined 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 organizations
by whose rules and regulations 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 concOn-
infant circumstances. left no room for
doubt.
Your committee has no hesitation in
declaring that the orders rendered were
gross abuse Of the power of the court;
were supported by neither reason nor
authority; were beyond the jurisdiction
OF the judge, and were therefore void.s
The second or supplementary writ
was more reprehensible than the INST.
because the judge was advised before
he rendered it of the exact objects and
purposes sought to be accomplished. e
THERE WAS NO SUGGESTION ~
Ill either of these letters of any fear
from illegal acts. but tile fear from sus-
pension of traffic, of an attending DAM
age to the road and Inconvenience to the
public were the sole reasons for the &C.
ton. Your committee also finds that no
measures looking to strike had been
na ~ Urn ra tod dx,oc m ho,,
been in contemplation, nor does it ap-
pear that any Of the persons named in
the writs of injunction have remained
in the service Of the company against
their will. 1t does appear, however.
that while they regarded the writ
as void, they believed that so
long as it was in force they were
bound to obey it under penalty of pun
ishment for contempt if they violated it,
and this consideration might have been
more effective than they are aware of in
inducing them TO remain in the service
Your committee does not concur in
the opinion of the judge that the de-
cisions rendered in the Toledo cases, by
Judges Taft and Kicks. at all support
his contentious. On the contrary, both
ciple that courts of equity cannot en-
force the specific performance of the
contract for personal service of writs of
injunction and other processes. but that
III such cases the remedy is at law by an
action for damages. They also clearly
recognize the right of the laboring peo-
pie. as means of selling their labor at
higher price, of coercing employers TO
accede to their demands. LII determin-
Ing the Iawfulness of proceeding of
this kind the judges justly take the law
as sustaining the employe, and incon-
venience to the general public cannot
be considered.
If employees have the lawful right to
combine III strike for the purpose of
forcing compliance with their demands
or securing the highest wages and best
terms possible, that right cannot be
remedied by the fact that its exercise is
levied on the interest of others. Its
principle applies, of course. only to
those strikes which exist in the with
drawal from service by concert and
combination. Should violence be done
to the person or property of the en-
ployer by those VINO have combined
against him, if others would supply the
service which the strikers have aban-
doned 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 crimi-
nal laws, and be punishable as such.
The conclusions, therefore, of the
judge. that the employees of the North
ern Pacific might be forced by him, by
writs of injunction. to protect that COM
pany from loss and the public from in
convenience by remaining in its service
at a rate OF wages to which they had not
given their assent. is one in which we
can not concur, and which, in our judg-
ment, is supported by none of the decis-
ions which he cites. 4
YOUR COMMITTEE &SB&
find nothing in the testimony, and see
no corrupt intention on the part of tho
judge to render these orders. It is ali
together possible that he is sincere in
the conviction that he properly exera
cised the equity jurisdiction of his court
in preventing loss and damages which
would have resulted from lawful strike
against the Northern Pacific Thi. vic I'm