The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1894-04-24
THE Law OF srs.xxs.

tisn restraining the employees OF The
Northern Pacific from striking, .ays scrss
trus things that sre nos rev ard some new
things that do rot seem 20 rs 20 be srse.
TIE receivers Of the Northern Pacific
gave noties on 0etohe. -. fsEs, Of the pro-
posed reduction in wages 20 take effect On
January I. In view Of the threatened
strike rn6sr these circumstances. Judge
jenkins issued his original order. In bis
later decision Judge Jenkins says Of the
enpsoye: '-Desming himself wronged By
the action OF the receivers, he had peaceful
remedy. The cours as ~ al times open
70 bis complaint, and 20 redress it Il sell
founded"
The situation before Judge Jenkins diff
this. that the Union Pacific railroad tried
to force reduction OF wages whore no
notice Of the proposed cnrtailFnsnt had
been given the employees. and IL ws
shown that there was q lorg-standing
compact between the officers and men OF
the Union Pacific, IN which it was sgreed
that neither party should attempt TO alter
the schedule Of wages without prelim-
mary notice to the other, and without
some semblanee of discussion or arbisra-
ton.
Judge Caldwell Vas therefore justified in
dEssosving the injunction issued by Judge
Dundy 10 the Union Pacific receivers.
Judge Caldwell and Judge jenkins agree
ON the rigit Of the empioye TO . previous
notice OF the proposed reduction and on
the right OF the court and the employer
TO confinc ths employees action TO this
legitimate field. Judge Jenkins holds that
the rights Of the employees must yield TO
the public welfare; that their rights are
subordinate to the public duty charged
upon the road. We quote:
THE bond and shareh olders invested
their money with the knowledge that their
rights are snbordinated to the public duty
charged upon the road. Like the bond
holder. the rights of the employe must
yield TO the pubic welfare. Il Is not q
question OF individual liberty which ID
relative aud limited by duty. The en-
p.oye cannot leave when he pleases. He
may. Of course. DO 50 at a proper time, in
q decent manner and after reasonab Ie
notice. He cannot combine and conspire
90 abandon the service with the object and
intent of Gripping the property and stop
ping the trains. upon whose continued
running portions of seven states depend
for supplies OF clothing, food and fuel"
This condemnation OF strikes which In
terfere with railways service to the public.
in view OF the fact that the courts are
always open for . settlement OF the dis
puis without resort to violent remedies, Is
not new: IL has always been judicially
affirmed. both in England and the United
States. The result of these recent labor
cases Is TO reaffirm the principle tina. q
railway empioye cannot leave the service
at any time or In any manner. but must
subordinate his action 10 the public good.
Nor. on tho other hand, can the wages of
employees under the care OF the courts be
redused withou. notice or without iastiti.
cation shown.
SO far Judge Jenkins has affirmed what
is generally regarded as sound and true,
but certainly not new. But the judge goes
further and defines q strike 'as a con-
sp;raey to ex,ort by violence" This is .
new definition. but II can hardly be called
often. but not necessarily. attended with
violence. the right TO strike without vio-
lence or intimidation cannot be ques-
toned. The right 10 refuse work at a
given price ~ indisputable.
As n matter of common sense, both
| Judge jenkins and Judge Caldwell hold
that in the case OF railroad employees the
| right 10 strike Is limited or qualified by
| the public veal, and when man take.
| service on railroad he may be fairly held
| 20 know that his right TO strike must be
exercised in such . manner as not to stop
/ or delay trafiic and to give the corpora
tons time to supply the places of the strik.
ers. The right in both cases Is reciprocal ;
the employer can not without due notice
cas wages or lock out employees, and the
/ employees can not without due notice strike
80 as TO cripple and stall the movement oil
! traffic the country over.
Judge jenkins defines a strike In these
/ words: "A combined effort among work.
/ men 10 compel the master 10 the conces
sion of certain demand by preventing
! the conduct OF his business until compli.
/ ance With the demand" Judge Jenktn,
! holds that no strike IL lawful which in
! eludes in It's weapons "she intimidation OF
/ others from engaging in the service, ths
interference with aud the disabling and
dsstruetion of property, and resort TO ae
! tusl force and violence when requisite "a
. the accomplishment OF the end" NJ
] strike, he says. can Re effective without
/ compuislon and force. and eonpuls.ou
can CONS oniy through intimidation and
! vsoiencs. A strike - Essentially n con
/ spirscy - extort by violence. " and 5hers
/ IS 80 such thing ~ a ''peaceahle strike. =
ia ihs opinion OF Judge Jenkins. as 6
! ''peaceable strike" ha. no chance OF sue
cess, therefore he holds aa strikes IN prac.
tioe, whasever they may he ideally. 10 b.
/ unlawful, because = strike lawfully con
Quoted would be ineffective.
Judge Ienk.as admits that an lie.
strike means "a concerted cessation Of or
/ refusal - work anti, OF unless certain con
| ditions which obtain ~ are incident 10 IA.
terms Of toe employ alent are changed. p
/ the employees knowing :hat Others may =
employed In their places. snd tha; the,
may not es returned 10 the service, Ano
the employers having Tho option Of acoess
! ing 10 the demands ami returning ID,
! strikers 20 tie service ~ 81 employing new
! men.
Thus cessation of labor Judge JanSin.
! admits does not lnr4y ''combinatIon {.
/ ertors or 10 cypress o. 10 iaserisrs va!
/ the Business Of tire employer" except a,
{ ln sssrx s,..w "a incidental =, - D.....t 49,