The herald., 1894-10-02
JUDGE jenkins INJUNCTION,
Justice Harlan Holds 1t Was
Illegal.
He Orders a Modification Of the Now
Famous Order.
a CLEAR Recognition by the Unitsd States
COURT of Appeals of the Right of
Employees to Unite
in y Strike.
By the Associated Press.

Dy tue Onlt6u ptht6s Clrcuib oOuTb OF
appeals and the case remanded with
instructions to strike from the restrain
ing order Of the court the clause which
aroused the country when the order was
issued and which resulted in the Boat
nsr investigating committee of congress.
The intervenors, representing the
leading labor organizations of the
eountry, asked that the sections of the
injunction be eliminated.
The court Of appeals decided that no
court could prevent man or body OF
men from quitting individually or in
body the service Of an employer. The
court said that Judge Jenkins hsd ex-
ceeded his powers when he enjoined the
employees Of the receivers OF the North
ern Pacific company from quitting the
service of said company, with or with
out notice, so as to cripple the properly
or hinder the proper operations OF SAID
road.
The court held, however, that the
section should stand in which the men
were prohibited from combining and
conspiring to quit. with or without
notice, the service of said receivers, with
the object and intent of crippling the
property in their custody or embarrass'
ing the operations of said road.
The decision was considered by the
LAWYERS who packed the court room as
one OF the moet important opinions de-
liyered in the United States in a decade.
1t defines the status before the law of
labor organizations in their conduct OF
strikes, and affirms the right of courts of
equity to interfere by injunction whore
there is reason to believe the law would
be violated.
1t holds that the men may withdraw
in a body from the service of an en-
ployer, using, however, neither force,
threats nor intimidation toward en-
ployees who do not join them, nor must
the use of eny ''device" to molest, hin
der or alarm, or interfere with others
who desire to take their places.
Justice Harlin of the supreme court
delivered the opinion. Sitting with him
were Judges Woods, Grosacup and Jen-
kina. Judge Jenkins appeared undis-
turbed by the opinion.
The audience that listened to the
reading of the opinion was a most dis
tinguished one. Ex-President Harrison
and his partner, Mr.. Elan, sat eide by
aide, we'll up toward the bench. After
disposing of other cases, in which the
findings of tho court were merely an
nounced by judges Woods ,and Jenkins,
Justice Harlan began the reading of the
opinion in the case of "P. M. Arthur ct
al, intervenors, against Thomas F.
Oskes, Henry G. Payne and Henry @.
Rouse, reosivers of the Northern Pacific
company" as the celebrated case is
known on the docket.
On the whole, the decision ia clear
recognition of the right of employees to
ptrike.
Justice Harlan, before giving the con-
clusions of the court. reviewed the his
tory of the celebrated injunction. The
receivers Of the road, in December last,
gave notice of reduction OF wages all
along the line, when the men threatened
to strike. Judge Jenkins issued the in
junction on December 10Th, preventing
strike. Two days later he amended
the injunction, making it more strin-
gent. The Brotherhood of Locomotive
Engineers joined with the other labor
rsanizstions to which the men be-
nged and applied to Judge Jenkins
'r modification of the order. Judge
enkins refused to strike out the clause
joining a strike, and the labor unions
pealed to the higher court.
The decision says that the injunction
sgainst employees 30 quitting as to Grip
pie the property or prevent or hinder
the operation of the road, was equiv
alent to command by the court thai
they should remain under the active
employment of the receivers and per-
form the service appropriate to their re-
Hpective positions until they could quit
without crippling the road. The time
when they could quit was not indicated
by the order of the court.
Under the circumstances" says the
decision. might the employees of the
receiver have the right to quit the ser,-
ice in which they we're engaged? Much
OF the argument OF counsel was directed
to this question. We shall not attempt
to lay down any rule applicable to every
case that may arise between employer
and employees. II an employee quit
without cause, and in direct violation OF
an express contract to serve for stated
time, then his quitting would not be
right. But the vital question remains
whether a court OF equity may under
any circumstances, by injunction, pre-
vent one individual from quitting the
service of another.
o IAN affirmative answer to this ques-
ition 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 invasion of ene'a natural
liberty to compel him to work for or
remain in the personal SERVICE of an
other. One who is placed in such re-
straint is in condition OF involuntary
servitude-a condition which the SUI
preme court laws of the land declare
shall not exist anywhere within the
Jurisdiction OF the United States.
The deeisi2e goes on to discuss wheth-
4. the fast that the property involved
. was q railway, with public duties to per-
form, gave the court the right to restrain
men from quitting. The receivers, the
decision declares, had the righE to make
"a new schedule OF wages and offer it to
.the men, with the alternative OF accept
cling it or quitting the service. The men
had the right to accept or refuse, and to
quit ii they we're not willing to work for
less wages. The court should have elm
mated the words "and from 80 quitting
the service OF the said receivers, with or
without notice. as to cripple the property
Tor prevent or hinder the operation of the
road"
al But different considerations .must
CONTROL" said Juatice Harlan, in re-
spect to the words in thesame psrsgrnph
of the injunction. and from combining
aRnd conspiring to quit, with or without
notice, the service of said receivers, with
'ithe object and intent OF crippling the
oproperty in their custody or embarrass-