The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1894-04-10

they had all recommended that a
cut be made. 1t is. the courts
belief that tho receivers made thu
request ignorantly, rs not ono of them is u
practical railroad man, ana their opinion
upon the subject Of wage schedules is con-
fessedly OF little value. The court shares
in their anxiety to have au economical adj
ministratlon OF this trust, TO the end that
those who own the property and have liens
upon IL may get out Of IL what is fairly their
due. But to accomplish this desirable result
the wages of the men must not be reduced
below n reasonable and just compensation
for their services, They must DO paid fair
wages though NO dividends are paid on the
stock and no interest paid on the bonds.
The recommendation of the receivers to
adopt their schedules cannot be accepted
by the coprt for another reason. That
schedule was adopted without affording
to the men or their representatives any
opportunity TO be heard. This was IN VIC
lation Of the agreement by tho terms Of
which no change Of the schedules was To
be made without notice to the men Ii
granting them u hearing. This was "a
fundamental error.
Passing thence to o discussion OF
some general aspects Of railway re-
ceiverships in their relation to labor
the court continued
The receivers were the FIRST to break
the contract between the court and its
employees; but II the reverse had been the
case the court could not havo directed or
enjoiued the men to continue in its SER
vice. Specific performance OF u contract
to r0nder personal service cannot bs EN-
forced by injunction, by pains and penal
ties, OF by any other means. The period
Of compulsory personal service, save as Il
punishment Tor crime, has passed in this
country. In this country it IS not unlaw-
full for employees to associate, consult and
confer together with a view to maintain
or increase their wages, by lawful and
peaceful means, any more than 10 WAS I'M
lawful for the receivers to counsel and
confer together for the purpose Of reduc-
ing their wages. y corporation is organ
ICED capital; organized labor ID organized
capital: what is lawful for one 10 do IS
lawful for the other to do.
1t is interesting to contrast this de-
cision with the modified ruling Of
Judge jenkins in the Northern Pacific
case, to the effect that employees OF a
railroad engaged in interstate COM
merce cGnno! suddenly quit work, with
out giving . reasonable notice; nor can
they combine and conspire to abandon
the service Of u road with the intent OF
Gripping the property. The original
ruling Of Judge jenkins restrained the
leaders Of the union men from "order-
ing, recommending, approving or adyis-
ing others to quit the service Upon
the representation that this clause IRE
straining an Individual from friendly
advice to the employees as a body, or indi-
yidually. as to th0ir or his best interest
in respect Of remaining in the service, "
the clause was on Friday. at Milwau.
kee, stricken from the writ. Thus, any
individual, according to Judge Jenkins.
may give friendly edvicB to railway
employees under Y receivership hut may
not order them to quit abruptly. in
such q as would cripple the
roads service to the public.
tbs technical points OF divergence
between these two simultaneous rul,
ings in almost similar cases render
doubly needful an authoritative review
Of this whole problsm by the United
States Supreme court Steps to this
end should be taken without delay.