The Washington times., 1894-10-02
HAD A RIGHT TO STRIKE
Justice Harlan Upsets Judge Jenkins
Famous Injunction.
IT INVADED NATURAL LIBERTY
Any Other View Is Violative of the Constitu-
tion, Which Declares Against Involuntary
servitude-If Dissatisfied with Wages the
Men Could Not Be Prevented from Quitting


CHICAGO, Oct. 1.--Judge Jenkins famous
strike Injunction was severely handled in the
United States court of appeals to-day by JUS
tice Harlan, of the United States Supreme
Court
judges Wood and Brown joined in Justice
HarIan's opinion; Judges jenkins and Gross
cup dissenting.
The decision in part reverses the famous
anti-strike order Of Judge Jenkins and in
part sustains it.
On the whole the decision, which was read
by Justice Harlan, who presided over the
court, is clear recognition of the right OF
the employees to strike.
Justice Harlan before giving the conclu-
sions of the court reviewed the history OF the
celebrated Injunction The receivers of the
road in December last gave notice of re-
| duction OF wages all along the line, and
when The men threatened TO strike, Judge Jen-
kius issued the Injunction on December 10,
preventing Il strike. Two days later he
amended the injunction, making it more
stringent. The Brotherhood of Locomotive
lllttIS lDluCu Will lit OlucE ltDDT uulODS
TO which the men belonged and applied to
Judge Jenkins for modification of the
order. Judge Jenkins refused 10 strike out
the clause enioining Il strike and the labor
unions appealed TO the higher court
The decision says that the injunction
against employees 50 quitting us 10 cripple
the property or prevent or hindec the opera
ton Of the road was equivalent TO a command
by the court that they should remain in the
active employment of the receivers, and per-
form the service appropriate to their reEpec-
tive positions until they could quit without
crpEling the road. The time when they
could quit was not indicated by the order of
the court.
HOW MAY AN ESIPLoYE QUIT?
Under what circumstances, says the de-
cision, may the employees of the receivers
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 aud employe. II
an employe quits without cause and in ViCla-
tion OF an express contract TO serve for a
stated time. then his quitting would not be of
right. But the vital question remains whether
court of equity will, under any circum-
stances. by injunction prevent one individual
from quitting the personal service OF another.
AN affirmative answer 10 this question 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 ones natural liberty to compel him 10 work
for, or remain in the personal service OF.
another. One who Is placed IN such restraint
IS IN condition OF involuntary seryifude; 4
condition which the supreme law Of the land
declares shah not exist anywhere within the
jurisdiction Of the United States
The decision then went on TO discuss
whether the fact that the property involved
was u railway, with public duties to perform,
gave the court the right to restrain r.Ie men
from quitting The receivers the decision
declares, had the right to make new sched-
ule OF wages and offer it to the men with the
alternative OF accepting il or rquitting the serv-
lee. The men had the right to accept or re-
fuse and To quit il they were not willing to
work for less wages. Tie court should have
eliminated the words ''and from so quitting
the service OF the said receivers. with or with
out notice, as TO cripple the property or pre-
vent or hinder the operation OF the road.
MUST USE NO THREATS OR INTIMIDATION.
"But different considerations must con
troll, - said Justice Harlan, "in respect to the
words in the same paragraph OF the injunc-
ton, and from combining and conspiring to
quit. with or without notice, the service of
said receivers with the object and intent of
criDp!lng the property III their custody or
embarrassing the operation of the road. We
have said that il employees were unwilling to
remain III the service Tor the compensation
prescribed for them by the revised schedules
it was the right OF each one on that account
to withdraw from the service
The general inhibition upon combinations
and cOnspiracies formed with the object
and intent OF crippllng, the property and en-
barrassing the operation OF the railroad must
4
lence. intimidation and wrong. We do not
interpret the words last above quoted as en-
bracing the case OF employees who. being dis
satisfied with the proposed reduction OF their
wages merely withdraw on that account
singly or by concerted action from the serv-
ice of the receivers, using neither force or
threats. persecution nor intimidation toward
employees who do not join them, nor any de-
vice to molest, hinder, alarm or interfere
with others who take or desire to take their
places.
CAN'T BE CHARGED WITH LOSS OF PROPERTY.
These employees having taken service first
with the company and afterward with the re-
ceivers under a general contract of employ
ment which did not limit the exercise of the
right to quit the service their peaceful CO.
operation as the result of friendly argument,
persuasion or conferences among themselves
In asserting the right Of each and all TO re-
fuse further service under a schedule of re-
duced wages. would not have been illegal or
criminal although they may have so acted in
the firm belief and expectation that p stimuli
taneous quitting without notice would tenn
porarily Inconvenience 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 the loss to the trust property
resulting from their cessation of work in
consequence OF the refusal OF the receivers to
accede to the terms upon which they were
willing TO remain in the service.
''Such u loss under the circumstances
stated would be incidental to the situation
and could not be attributed to employees exer-
cising lawful rights in orderly ways, or to the
receivers, who, in good faith and in fidelity to
their trust, declared reduction in wages
and thereby caused dissatisfaction among
employees and their withdrawal from the
service
The opinion concluded by holding that the
act of Congress of July 2, 1880, known as the
interstate commerce act, had no bearing on
the question before the court. The order of
Judge jenkins is reversed in part, and the
cause is remanded with directions to sustain
the motion TO strike out to the extent indi-
Gated in the opinion.
October Cyclone Month at Sea.
The forecast for this month issued yester-
day by the Naval photographic Of1ce indicates
that October also will be a cyclone month.
1t reads: Frequent gales between the New
IL.