Birmingham age-herald., 1894-10-02
By the United States Court of
 Appeals
AS TO THE ACTS OF STRIKERS
The Famous Decision of Judge Jenkins in Part Reversed.
 demanded for Changes.

xsCHIcAGo, Oct. 1.-In a long decision read by Justice Harlan and prepared by him, the United States circuit court of ap- peais this morning reversed In part the fa- nous decision of Judge Jenkins in the case of Postmaster Arthur and others against the Northern Pacific railroad, in which Judge Jenkins decided that men had no right to combine for strike under certain conditions, chief among which was when there was intent to injure the property or business of the road. Although the case is reversed in part and the cause remanded with directions to strike out certain DOT tions of Judge Jenkins' opin ion, the effect of the decision is to prevent all strikes un- less they be absolutely peaceable.
 Judges Harlan, Jenkins, Bum, 0ross- cup and Woods sat today. The order, while prepared by Justice Harlan, was also participated in by Judges Wood and Bum.
 The gist of the opinion follows;
 ''The questions before us relate to the powers oi court of equity having custody, by receivers, of the railroad and other property of corporation to enjoin combi- nations, conspiracies or acts upon the part of the receivers, employees ana their asso- ciates in labor organizations, which, if not restrained, would do irreparable mis- chief 10 such property. and prevent the receivers from discharging the duties im- posed by laws upon the corporation.
 "The injunction against employees so quitting as to cripple the property or prevent or hinder the operation of the railroad was equivalent to a command by the court that they should remain in the active employment of the receivers, and perform the services appropriate to their respective positions until they would with- draw without crippling the property of the company or preventing the operation of the road.
 ssrhe vital question is whether a court of equity will, under any circumstances. by Injunction prevent one individual from quitting the personal services of another. An affirmative answer to this question is not, we think, justified by any authority to which our attention has been called, or of which we are aware. 1t would be an in- vasion of one's natural liberty to compel him to work or to remain in the personal service of another. One who is placed un- der such a constraint is in condition of involuntarIly servitude-a condition which the supreme court of the United s .ates de- clares shall not exist. The rule, we think, is without exception that equity will not c0Iupei tho aotual alternative performance by an eDploye of merely per6Unal services any more than it will compel an employer to retain in bis personal service one, whom, no matter of what cause, is not acceptable to him for services of that character. Un. doubtedly the simultaneous cessation of work by any considerable nuniber-of rail- road employees without previous notice will have an injurious effect, and for time inconvenience the public. But these evils, great as they are, are to be met and remedied by Legislation restraining alike employees and employers. h the absence of such Legislation the right of one in the service of quasi-public cor pora,ion to withdraw therefrom whenever he sees fit must be deemed so far absolute that courts of equity cannot interfere.
 ..It is one thing, however, for single ing on his own responsibility to quit work and quite different thing in the eye of the law for many persons to combine or Cou> spire together with the intent, not simply of asserting their rights by peaceable melh- ods, but of employing their united efforts entirely clear that any combination or con- spiracy on the part of these employees would be illegal which had for it's object the crip- bling of property in the hands of receivers, the control or management of the property or by using force, intimidat on or wrong ful methods against employees re. maining in the service, to in- luce them to quit the service. Com mbinations of this character disturb the extreme. They imperil the interests of the public and endanger the personal liberty and personal security of individuals, who, in the exercise of inalienable privilege of choosing the terms upon which they shall labor, enter or attempt to enter the service of those agalnst whom such com binations are aimed. The circuit court therefore properly framed it's injunction so as to Restrain all acts specifically mentioned. We are of the opinion that the civil act properly refused to strike from the writs of injunction the words, sand from com bining or conspiring to quit the service of receivers with the object of crippling the property in their custody
 Justice Harlan declined to pass upon the question as to whether the court had juris. diction in this case under the Sherman antitrust act of 1890-the principal ques- tion at issue in the Debs contempt case.
 Among those who heard the opinion read was Ex- President Harrison. The United States court of appeals has contin- ued the case of Dsbs and the other direc- tors of the American Railway union. who took an appeal from the Woods 0rosscup iujuction, restraining them from interfer- Ing with railroad property during the rec cent strike, to the next term of court at the request of the defendants.
 Lady Henry Somerset maintains thss pure food is half the battle of life. A guar-