Watertown republican. [volume] (Watertown, Wis.) 1860-1906, 1894-05-09
JUDGE JENKINS SCORED.
House subcommittee Makes a Re-
port on the Northern Pa
citic Investigations

ing CDdG the OrOcTS rendered WcIe
gross abuse Of the court, were supported
by neither reason nor authority, were
beyond the jurisdiction of the Judge,
and were therefore void"
This is the meat of the findings against
Judge James G. Jenkins by the majority
of the committee On judiciary, author
lied by the House to investigate the
famous Injunction restraining the North
ern Pacific employees from striking.
This report is signed by Representative
Boatner. of Louisiana, chairman of the
subcommittee, and Representative
Terry, of Arkansas. A minority report
was submitted by Representative Stone,
of Pennsylvania, which upholds Judge
Jenkins in measure.
The majority report gives detailed
history of the troubles Of the Northern
Pacific Railroad, relates how the road
passed into the hands of the receivers
and the action taken to reduce eX-
penses by cutting down the wages of
the employees. The letters laid before
the committee by Attorney Miller, of
Milwaukee, are included. Then the re-
port says:
Notwithstanding the suggestion by the
employees that they desired to confer the or
ders were Immediately obtained without
awaiting the results of conference or be-
ing in possession of any definite lnforma-
ton of the intention of the employees with
respect to the schedules upon which
they solicited conference. The original
order, received on the 10Th of December,
had two-fold aspect 1t reduced exist
ing wages and enjoined and prohibit
ed those who were to received them,
if they remained in the service OF
the company, from quitting the service with
or without notice SO as to cripple the prop
erty or iniure the operations of the road.
On being advised that if 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 under con-
struction placed upon the existing order
(the Injunction by those who had obtained
it, they would thereby commit a contempt
of court and were liable to punish
ment for so doing the officers of
the company Immediately asked for
and the Judge granted the second
order of injunction on the sd of Decem-
Der. The object of this was to ensure to the
company the compulsory services of the
operatives then in its employ, because If
under the first order OF injunction the men
could not quit without beng guilty of con-
tempt, they would not do so unless ordered
by the officers of their several OrganiZa-
tions, and if these officers were pro-
hibited from advising the strike it
was perfectly evident that the officers so
enioined 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 regula-
tions they were governed. This was the OBJ
ject sought to be obtained; that the order
was drawn to etfectuate, and 1t was signed
by the Judge with that intent, the language
of the order and concOmitant clrcum-
stances left no room for doubt.
Your committee has no hesitation in de-
claring that the orders rendered were a
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.
The second or supnleme ntary writ was
| more reprehensible than the first because
the Judge was advised before he rendered it
of the exact objects and purposes sought to
be accomplished There was no suggestion
in either of these letters of any fear of IL
legal acts, but the fear from suspension of
traffic of attending damage TO the road
and inconvenience to the pr bic were the
sole reasons Tor the action which the Judge
took
Your committee also finds that no meas
UreS looking to a strike had been inaugu-
rated, nor does any seem to have been IN
OF the persons named or referred to in the
writs of injunction have remained in the
service OF the company against their Will.
1t does appear, however, that while they re-
garded the writs void, they believed that so
long as it was in force they were bound to
obey it under penalty of punishment for
contempt If they violated 1t, and this con-
siGeratiOn might have been more effective
than they were aware of il inducing them
to remain in the service of the receivers.
Y our committee does not concur in the
opinion Of the Judge that the decisions rem
dered in the Toledo cases. page 81, Federal
Reports. by Judges Taft and Ricks at all
support his contention in the case under
consideration. On the contrary, both OF
the cases clearly recognize the principle
that courts OF equity cannot enforce the
specific performance of the contract for per-
sonal service by writs of injunction and
other processes, but that in such cases the
remedy is at law by an action for damages.
They also clearly recognize the right OF the
laboring people, as means Of selling their
| labor at higher price, of coercing EN-
ployers to accede to their demands. In de-
termining the laWfulness of a proceeding OF
this kind, the judges justly take the law as
sustaining the employee and inconvenience
to the general public cannot be considered.
If employees have the lawful right to
combine in strike Tor the purpose of fore
ing compliance with their demands or Sc
curing the highest wages and best terms
possible that right cannot be remedied by
the fact that its exercise is levied or the in
terest of Others. Its principle applies. OF
course only to those strikes which exist in
the withdrawal from service by concert and
combination. Should violence be done to
the person or property of the employer by
those who have combined against him; II
others would supply the service which the
strikers have abandoned 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 criminal laws and be punishable as
such. The conclusion, therefore, of the
Judge that the employees of the Northern
Pacific Railroad Company might be forced
by him by writs of injunction to protect
that company from loss and the public from
inconvenience byremaining in its. service
at rate of wages to which they had not
given their assent, is one in which we cannot
concur and which in our Judgment is sup
ported by none of the decisions which he
cites.
Your committee find nothing in the testi-
mony nor see any corrupt intention on the
part of the Judge TO render these orders