The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1894-10-02
JENKINS KULING.
Justice Harlan Makes One Modifying
the Famous Labor Decision

United States circuit court of appeals.
reversed in part the famous decision of
Judge Jenkins in the case of p M Ar
thur and others, against the northern
Pacific railroad, in which Judge Jenkins
decided that men had no right to COM
bine 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 portions of Judge
Jenkins opinion, the effect of the decis-
ion is to prevent all strikes, unless they
be absolutely peaceable. Judges Harlan,
jenkins, Bum, Grosscup and Woods sat
to-day. The order, while prepared by
Justice Harlan, was also participated in
by Judges Woods and Bum. The gist of
the opinions follows:
The questions before us relate to the
powers of court of equity-having Gus
tody, by receivers, of the railroad and
other property of a corporation-to enioin
combinations, conspiracies or acts upon
the part of the receivers, employees and
their associates IN labor organizations,
which, if not restrained, would bring ire
parable mischief to such property and
prevent the receivers from dlscharg;ng
the duties imposed by law upon the cor
poration.
NATURE OF THE INJUNCTION.
The Injunction against employees so
quitting as TO cripple the property, or
prevent or hinder the operation of the
railroad, was equivalent to com
mand by the court that they should re.
main In the acJive employment of the
receivers and perform the services ap-
propriate TO their respective positions
until they could withdraw without Grip
ping the property or preventing the
operation of the road. The vital question
Is whether court Of equity will under
any circumstances by injunction prevent
one lndlvl dual from quitting the person al
service of another. An Affirmative answer
to this question is not justified by any
authority TO which our attention has
been called, or of which we are aware.
IL would be an invasion of ones natural
liberty 10 compel him to work or TO re
main in the personal service of another.
one who is placed under such a con-
straint is in condition of involuntary
seryitude-a condition which the supreme
court of the United States declares shall
not exist. The r1le, we think is
without exception that equity will not
compel the actual affirmative perform
ance by an employe of merely personal
services any more than it will compel an
employer TO retain in his personal service
one who for no matter what cause, is not
acceptable TO him for service of that
character. Undoubtedly the simultane-
Gus cessation of work by any considerable
number of railroad employees without pre-
yiOus 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 re-
straining alike employees and employers
In the absence of such legislation, the
right of one in the service of a quasi-pub-
lie corporation to Withdraw therefrom
whenever he sees fit must be deemed so
far absolute that courts of equity cannot
interfere
COMBINATION DIFFERENT MATTER
ut is one thing, however, for a single
individual or several individuals each
acting on his own responsibility, to quit
work, and quite different thing in the
eye of the law for many persons to com
blne or cOnspire together with the intent.
not simply Of asserting their rights by
peaceable methods, but of employing their
un.teu efforts TO injure others or the public.
1T seems entirely clear that any CONT bina-
ton or conspiracy on the part of these en-
ployes would be illegal which had for it's
object the gripping of property in the
hands OF receivers, either by disabling
property, by obstracting the con
trOl or management of the prop
erty or by using force, intimida-
tion or wrongful methods against
employees remaining in the service to in
duce them to quit the service. Combina-
tions of this character disturb the peace
of society, and are mischievous in the ex-
treme. They imperil the interests of the
public, and endanger the personal lib
erty and personal security of in.
divlduals, who, in the exercise of the
inalierable privilege of choosing the
terms upon which they shall labor, enter
or attempt to enter the service of those
against whom suCn com binations are
aimed. The circuit court, therefore,
properly framed its injunction so as TO re-
strain all acts specifically mentioned
We are of the opinion that the civil court
properly refused TO strike from the writs
of injunction the words: land from COM
bining or conspiring to quit the service
of the receivers with the object Of Grip
pling the property in their Gus Lody.D
The result of these views is that the
court below should have eliminated from
the writ of injunction the words land
from so quitting the service of the said
receivers, with or without notice, as to |
cripple the property or prevent or hinder /
the operation of said railroad -
Justice Harlan declined to pass upon |
the question whether the court had turis- |
diction in this case under the Sherman /
antitrust act of l890-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 continued the |
case of Debs and the other directors of /
the American Railway Union who took an |
appeal from the Woods-Grosscup inlunc- |
tion restraining them from interfering |
with abroad property during the recent /
strike, 10 the next term OF court, at the /
request of the defendants.