St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1894-06-09
JENKINS is DEFENDED.
now THE MINORITY END or THE JU-
DiciARY COMMITTEE
LOOKS AT THE RAILROAD CASE
If tho Milwaukee Judge Acted
According to Law He Should
Not Be Harassed by a Com
gressiOnal Committee-If,d He
Violated the Law He Should
Be Impeached at Once. HR9


Violated the Law He Should
Be Impeached at Once. 619
WASHINGTON, June 8.-Representa-
tive William A. Stone. of Pennsylvania,
today submitted a minority report on
the investigation by the house commit
tee on Judiciary of the decision of
Judge Jenkins. The report is signedby
Representatives Stone. Ray, of New
York, and Powers, of Vermont. After
reviewing briefly the history of the in
junction issued by Judge Jenkins, the
subsequent oceedings under them,
and the institution Of congressional In
vestigatiOn. the report says: It, APP
pears by the testimony taken by the
subcommittee Of the house Judiciary
committee that the employees understood
the inlunctions to prevent them from
leaving the service of the railroad in
any manner. without the consent of the
receiver. The petition was made to
Judge jenkins to modify the terms of
his order. and in decision filed, which
IS published with the testimony in this
case, he disclaims any intention by his
injunction to prevent any of the en-
ployes quitting the service of the CON-
pany in a peaceable, decent or reason
able way.
In his opinion he says: None will
dispute the general proposition of the
right of every one to choose his en-
ployer and to determine the time and
conditions of service or his right to
abandon such service peaceably and
decently."
An appeal to the court of appeals of
that district from these injunctions
granted by Judge jenkins was taken.
where the same is now pending. with
the expectation of a decision within the
near future.
The committee have reported at
some length, taking issue with Judge
jenkins solely upon the law of the case,
| aud holding that he committed
GRAVE LEG AL ERRORS,
| and was guilty of an abuse of legal
process. and have submitted resolu-
tion tor adoption by the house. and also
recommended Statute prohibiting the
enforcement of specific performance of
labor contracts by legal process.
| AS the minority do not represent the
governing power of the house, they do
| not feel called upon to indulge in any
affirmative proposition in relation to
the subject matter of the report. Their
| recommendations would have no
power, and, therefore, it is not worth
! while to make them. The labor ques-
| ton, in its relation with railroads, is
one full of complications, because of
the public interests which intervene.
| In ordinary eases. both between
employers and employees. the public
| have only a slight interest. but here
| they have direct one. for not only in
| free passage interrupted, but business
| and supplies are cut off. On one hand,
it is no ones interest 10 cripple the rail-
roads. but On the other hand the men
| are entitled to a fair wage in the settle
ment of the matter. for which they must
have reasonable combined voice. 1t
must be still further said that some
method of adjustment should be chad
which would secure public traffic and
business of all the people from being
Interrupted by the disputes Of those
Immediately interested. 1t can be seen
at glance that such a question cannot
be settled by mere language. nor by
1
the concurrence of both parties
ON A COMMON BASIS. a
| The basis of settlement will be found
when the persons interested have had
the benefit of many failures on both
| sides. We have great hopes thata basis
will soon be reached, first by finding
| what the law is, and second by agreeing
to what it ought to be. We, therefore,
must decline to follow the majority into
any disquistion as to what the law is.
That seems to he under control of an
other branch, and already in train to be
settled authoritatively.
But the attitude of the majority is
one which ought not to pass without
aniniadversion. Ii, as the committee
says. ''lhe testimony adduced before US
fails to show any corrupt intent Oh the
part of the judge" if also lit is alto
gether possible that he sincerely be-
lieves the orders granted by him were
sanctioned by law, then the question
should be left ia the appellate tribunal
A federal judge. in the exercise of his
functions, having arrived at a conclu.
sion without any corrupt inteut. con
clusion "he sincerely believes in
ought hardly be harassed by con-
gressional committee, since he is quite
as likely to be right on point of law as
it. Individually, we may not believe
his law was sound. and may not think
1t will be SO pronounced by the>tribuna
! of appeals; but if he was honest anC
has given his honest opinion honestly
it would seem as if the correction
should come from another source, ant
that the law should be settled by the
proper tribunal, prior to legislation. Ii
may be that no legislation is required
and the appellate court will afford al
the relief the country needs. If, on TIT
other hand, Judge jenkins has been
we will not say corrupt, but unduly
swayed in the exercise OF his function!
by improper influences, or has statet
law so badly that it is plain that he has
violated his evident duty as holcer o.
the scales of justice, as an arbltsr be-
tween rival interests. then he should
BE IMPEACHED.
In word, if be has been corrupt, O
has so wrested the law of the land tina
injustice has been done, so evident tina
it carries with it the proof of evil in
tent, then congress has plain duty Il
perform. But if it be mere question
of law. then the judiciary has the dut,
to perform, and congress, by granting
court of appeals, has ended its duty
OF course, when the case is finished,
the final appeal should demonstrat
that the law is defective, then remedie
should be applied; but we ought t
know what the law is before we act. !
it should be finally determined tina
Judge jenkins was wrong, then the lay
may not need amendment. The com
mittse thinks he was wrong, and yet
, purposes to act IL he was right.
So much for the legislation originall
J proposed. AS for the resolution orc
. posed later, we do not see how it coul
i be justified. Were it demanded thatcw
\ should vote condemnation OF the prOpo
D sition that involuntary servitude shout
t be established by any interpretations q
law. all sensible men would be agreed
Republicans most of all; but to propos
that a judge who, as the majority d,
clares, had no corrupt INTENT" All
o "who sincerely believes" In his concl,
4: sions, shall, without impeachment, /
Il censured by the legislative branches