The Caldwell tribune. [volume] (Caldwell, Idaho Territory [Idaho]) 1883-1928, 1894-10-06
ARE NOT UNLAWFUL
United States Supreme Court
on Strikes.
A VICTORY FOR THE UNIONS.
Court Decide That No Court Can Prevent
Men From Quitting Individually
or COllee lively.

CHICACD, OCts l.--JuuSo JNAnIAS
strike injunction was overruled toda.
by the United States circuit court G
appeals and this case remanded. In
directions were to strike from the re
straiEirg order of the court the claus
which aroused the country when tn
order was issued and which resulted II
the Boatner investigating conmitte
of congress. The intervenors, repre-
senting the leading lator organization
of the country, asked that two sections
Of the Injunction be eliminated.
The court of appeals decided that NJ
court could prevent n man or body o
men from quitting individually or In
body the service OF an employer. Thu
court said that Judge Jenkins had ex
ceeded hi. powers when he enjoineC
the employees of the receivers OF The
Northern Pacific company rom quit
ting the service of salu company with
or without notice, so as to cripple the
property or hinder the proper operation
Of said road.
The decision was considered by the
lawyers, W TO packed the court room, as
one of the most important opinions
delivered in the United States in q
decade. 1t defines the status before
law Of labor organizations III the con.
duct Of strikss and uffirms the rights
Of courts of equity to interfere by in.
junction where there is reason 10 be.
lieve the law would be violated.
Harlan hold that body OF men had O
right to quit Irrespective of the discom
fort Which might result. They had,
however, 10 right to conspire to dam-
age or elnbarrass. He did not agree
with Jenkins famous definition of q
strike. '"That it was necessarily il
legal" Judge Harlan held there was
such thing as a legal strike. Judge
jenkins Injunction was modified.
The opinion was rendered by Justice
Harlan of the supreme court and
Judges Wood and Bum. The bench
was occupied by Justice Harlan and
Judges Wood. Bum, jenkins and
Groscup. jenkins appeared undis-
turbed by the decision.
Clear Victory for the Unions.
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 with
out notice, as to cripple the property or
prevent or hinder the operations of the
road" the court of appeals declares
Was u violation of the rights of EN-.
ployea, who could not legally be re-
strained from leaving the employ of
saw fit to do SO, whether they quit in
. body or individually.
That part of the Injunction which
restrained employees from entering into
q combination or conspiracy 10 quit
with the intention of Gripping prop
erty and preventing the operation OF
the road is sustained. On the whole
the decision is clear recognition of the
right of employees to strike.
History of tho Injunction.
JeAtice Harlan, before giving the
conclusions of the court, reviewed the
History Ct the celebrated Injunction.
last gave botiee of reduction OF wages
all along the line, when the men
threatened to strik". Judge Jenkins
issued an injunction preventing the
strike. Two days later he amended
the in junction, making it more strin.
gent. The Brotherhood of Locomotive
Engineers joined with the other labor
organizations to which the men be.
AoDged and applied to Judge jenkins
iox . modification of the order. The
Judge refused to strike out the clause
snjoining the strike, and the labor
unions APPEALED to u higher court.
Tho decision says that the Injunction
against the employees so quitting as to
cripple the property, or prevent or hiu-
der the operation If the road, was
equivalent to a command by the court
that they should remain under active
Of the receivers and
perform service appropriate to their re-
spective positions until they could quit |
without crippling the road. The time
when they could quit was not Indicated |
by order of the court
When Can 1hey Quit.
fTader what circumstances" says
the decision, ''may the employees of the
receivers have right 10 quit the ser.
vice In which they were engaged? The
vital question remains whether court
of equity will. under any circum.
stances. by Injunction prevent one i'm
dividual from quitting the personal
service Of anOlner. AN affirIna:. We |
answer 10 this question is not. we
think. justified by any authority TO
" hich our attention has been called or
Df W hich We are aware. 1t would be
IN invasion Of ones natural liberty to
compel him to work for or remain In
he personal service of another. One
who Is placed in such restraint Is
70 condition of involuntary servitude,
\ condition which the supreme court
and the law Of the land declares shall
not exist anywhere within the juris.
fiction of the U,,iled States"
The d. cisiOn then went on to discuss
whether the fact that the property In
,olved was o railway with public du-
les to perform, gave the court right
O restrain mon from quitting. The
cceiverr. the decision declares. had a
light to make new scbeduie of wages
md offer it to the n'en With the alter
native of accepting or quitting The
efvice. The men had right to ac-
,ept or refuse aid to quit II they were
lOt willing to work for less wages,
The court should have eliminated the
words and from, SO quitting service
i the said receivers with or without
lotice a. to cripple the property or
,revent or hinder the operation OF the
Oad." The decision continues: I'VE
ave said that II the employees were I'm.
villiug 10 remain In the eervice for the
IN the revised schedule