The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1894-10-02
STRIKES MAY BE LEGAL.
Court of Appels at Chicago Turns
Down Judge jenkins Famous
Order.

Down Judge jenkins E3nOuS
Order.
Chicago, Oct In the United
States court of apr als today, Judge
Harlan, Of the United States Supreme
court, severely handled the famous
strike injunction of Judge Jenkins.
Harlan held that a body of men had
a right to quit work, irrespective of
the discomfort which might result.
They had, however, no right to con-
ispire to do damage or embarrass. He
did not agree with Jenkins famous
definition of a strike-"That it was
necessarily Illegal"
Judge Harlan held that there was
such thing as a legal strike.
That part of Jenkins Injunction
which restrained employees of the
road from striking, or in the language
of the injunction, From so quitting
the service of said receiver. with or
without notice, so as to cripple the
property or prevent or hinder the OPP
Grafton of the road" the court of ap-
lpeals declares was a violation of
rights of employees, who could not le-
Igally be restrained from leaving the
Iemploy of the receivers and the COM
pany when they saw fit to do so,
whether they quit in body or indi-
lvidually. That part of the injunction
which restrained employees from en-
tering into combination or conspiracy
to quit, with the intention of Gripping
the property and preventing the oper-
alton of the road is sustained.
On the whole, the decision is a clear
recognition Of the right of employees
Ito strike.
The opinion was rendered by Justice
orloT1 af hn nj
Judges Wood and Bum. The bench
was occupied by Justice Harlan and
Judges Wood and Bum, Jenkins and
IGrosscup. Jenkins appeared undis-
turbed by the decision
Justice Harlan, before giving the con-
| illusions 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 49, preventing a
strike. Two days later. he amended the
Injunction making it more stringent. The
brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers
Joined with the other labor organizations
to which the men belonged and applied
to Judge Jenkins for a modification of
the order. Judge Jenkins refused 10
strike out the clause enjoining a strike
and the labor unions appealed to the
higher court The decision says that the
Injunction against employees so quitting
as to cripple the property or prevent or
hinder the operation of the road was
equivalent to a command by the court
that they should remain under the active
employment of the receivers and perform
the service appropriate to their respec-
tive positions until they could quit with
out Gripping the road. The time when
they could quit was not Indicated by the
order of the court
Under what circumstances, says the
decision: may the EMPLOYEES of the re-
ceivers have right to quit the service in
which they are 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
employee. If an employee quits without
cause and in violation of an express con-
tract to serve for a stated time, then his
quitting would not be of right But the
vital question remains whether a court
of equity will, under any circumstances,
by injunction prevent one individual
from quitting the personal service of an
other.
AN affirmative answer to this oues-
ton is not, we think, justified by any
authority to which our attention has been
called or of which we are aware. It
would be an invasion of ones natural
liberty to compel him to work for or re-
main in the personal service of another.
One who is placed in such restraint is in
a condition of involuntary servltude-a
condition which the supreme court laws
where. within the jurisdiction of the
United States.''
! The decision then went on to discuss
: whether the fact that the property m
volved-was a railway, with public duties
to perform-gave the court the right to
restrain the men from quitting. The re-
ceiyers the decision declares, had the
right 10 make a new schedule of wages
and offer 1t to the men with the alterna-
| tive of accepting it or quitting the SER
vice. The men had the. right to accept
or refuse and to quit if they We're not
| willing to work for less wages The
court should have. eliminated the words
ard from so quitting the service of the
sald receivers with or without notice so as
to cripple the property or prevent or
hinder the operation of the road"
But different considerations must con-
troll" said Justice Harlan Fin respect TO
the words in the same paragraph of the
Injunction, and from combining and con-
spring to. quit, with or without notice the
service of said receivers with the object
and intent Of Gripping the property in
their custody or embarrassing the opera
ton of the road. We have said that if the
employees were unwilling to remain in the
service for the compensation prescribed
for them by the revised schedule, it was
the right of each one on that account to
withdraw from the service
The decision discussed the right Of en-
Dlovees to strike. as follows:
THE general inhibition upon combina-
, tons and conspiracies formed with the
object and intent of Gripping the prop
erty and embarrassing the operation of
the railroad, must be construed as re-
ferring only to acts of violence, intimida-
ton and wrong. We do not interpret the
words as above quoted as embracing the
case of employees who, being dissatisfied
with the proposed reduction of the wages
merely withdraw on account singly or by
concerted action from the. service of the
receivers, using neither force threats per-
secution nor intimidation toward en-
ployees who do not Join them nor any
device to modest, hinder, alarm or inter-
fere with others who take or desire to
take their places. These employees hav-
ing taken service first with the company
and afterward with the receivers under
4 general contract of employment which
did not limit the exercise of their right to
leave the service: their peaceful co-opera-
ton, as the result of friendly. argument
persuasion or conference among them
selves, in asserting the right of each
! and every one to refuse further service
under a schedule of reduced wages. would
!, not have been Illegal or criminal. although
they may have so acted in the firm belief
, | and expectation that simultaneous quit
|. ting without notice would temporarily in
convenience the receivers and the public
: If in good faith and peaceably they exer-
. else their right of quitting the service in
! tending thereby only TO better their condi-
ton by securing such wages as they
: deem just, but not to injure or interfere
with the free action Of Others they cannot
be legally charged with any loss to the
trust property resulting from their cessa-
Fl ton of work in consequence of the refusal
of the receivers to accede to terms upon
! which they were willing to remain in the
service. Such loss under the circum-
: stances stated, would be incidental to the
= situation and could not be attributed to