The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1894-10-10
THE RIGHTS OF STRIKERS.

reversing the ruling of Judge Jenkins
on that question. AS to the relative po-
sitions taken by the lower and higher
courts, Judge Harlan quoted the defini-
ton of strike offered in the argu-
ment before Judge Jenkins as the
labor view; that is:
"A strike is a concerted cessation of
or refusal to work until or unless GER
tain conditions which obtain or are in
c1dent to the terms Of employment are
changed. The employee declines to
longer work, knowing full well that the
employer may Immediately employ an
other to fill his place; also knowing
that he may or may not be re-em-
ployed or returned to service"
The circuit Judge held that more
exact definition of strike was:
"a combined effort among workmen
to compel the master to the concession
of certain demand by preventing the
conduct of his business until compli-
ance with the demand"
The judge further remarked:
1T is idle to talk of peaceful strike.
None such ever occurred. The sugges-
ton is an impeachment of intelligence.
All combinations to interfere with per-
feet freedom in the management of
ones lawful business, to dictate the
terms upon which such business shall
be conducted, by means of threats or
by interference with property or
traffic, or with the lawful employment
Of others, are within the condemnation
of the law. 1t has been well said that
the wit of man could not devise a
legal strike, because compulsion is the
leading idea of it. A strike is essential
ly conspiracy to eXtort by violence;
the means employed to effect the end
being not only the cessation of labor
by the conspirators, but the necessary
prevention of labor by those who are
willing to assume their places, and,
as last resort, and in many instances
an essential element of success, the dis
abling and destruction of the property
of the master; and so, by intimidation
and by the compulsion of force, to ac-
complish the end designed
The higher court held that the cir
cult court erred in this definition, and,
therefore, that the injunction based up
on it should be reversed. Justice Har-
Ian said:
1--WE are not prepared, in the alb
sence of evidence, to hold as matter of
law that combination among en-
ployees having for it's object their Or
derby withdrawal in large numbers or
in body from the service of their en-
ployers on account simply of reduc-
ton in their wages, is not a strike
within the meaning of that word as
commonly used. Such a withdrawal, al
though amounting to a strike, is not,
as we have already said, either Illegal
or criminal"
A number Of authorities were cited
in support Of this, and His Honor went
on to say:
THAT employees and their associates
may not unwittingly place themselves
in antagonism to the courts authority
and become subject to fine and impris-
onment as for contempt, the order
should indicate more clearly than has
been done that the strikes intended to
be restrained were those designed to
cripple the trust property or
to actually obstruct the receivers IN
the operation of the road, or to inter-
fere with their employees who do not
wish to quit. or to prevent by intimida-
ton or other wrongful modes. or by
any device, the employment Of others
to take the place OF those quitting.
and not such as were the result of ex-
ercise by employees in peaceable ways
Of rights clearly belonging to them and
were not designed to embarrass or in
lure others or to interfere with the
actual possession and management of
The property by the receivers"
On this matter, here is what The
Herald said to which J. C. takes ex-
,eption: {.
When one stops to think of the
natter it must seem strange Indeed
hat the right of men to quit work
,ould ever be questioned. Men have
hat right, and must have it, if they
are to be anything else than slaves"
1t should be understood there are
strikes and strikes. Some are lawful,
others unlawful. When men peacefully
luit work without interfering with the
liberty or property of others they do
lot violate the criminal law When the
tights of life, liberty or property are
INVADED, a strike is. unlawful, and NAV
be restrained or its promoters punish
ID.
AS to contracts. OF course, any law
III contract ought to be fulfilled and
If it is violated the party |
o its violation may be sned at the
ivil law. If railroad hand is hired |
" the month and determines to quit /
york before the month is up, does our |
mean to say he can be |
compelled by civil or military force to |
york till the months end? Or is not
he remedy suit for damages?
The law on land and the code at sea
re very different. What might be. JUS
ifable in a mutiny on board ship
7ould not be tolerated in a strike on
and. The Wholesome discipline" our
speaks of might be prop
rly administered in an unlawful
trike, to suppress violence and protect
fe and property. But in such a strike
8 Justice Harlan declares lawful no
UGH discipline" is to be permitted.
he employer has the same remedy at
he civil law when his employee breaks
is working contract as the latter has
gainst the former when discharged
gainst a contract. Neither has any
light to shoot the other by way of
wholesome discipline" and the work
IAN in this respect has equal rights
18th his boss" The Herald holds to
s position on this important ques-
on
HE BUSINESS REVIVAL ADMITTED