Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1894-05-05
JENKINS HELD UP,
His Famous Ruling in the
Northern Pacific Matter.
THE COMMITTEES REPORT.
Failure to Find Grounds for
impeachment.
The Question OF the Appointment OF
Receiver. by the United states
Courts Touched Upon--rnr-
Reaching Power of Judges.


BY Associated Press,
Washington. May 4--Representntlve
Boatner OF Louisiana, chairman OF the
special committee OF the Judiciary conn
mlttee OF the house of representatives.
appointed TO investigate the Northern
Pacific decisions Of Judge jenkins, to-
day submitted I'm behalf of the mojori-
~ OF the Investigating committee a re-
port TO the full judiciary committee.
The report was discussed for two
hours but no action was taken by the
fun committee. The report was made
special order OF the full committee for
next Tuesday Representative w, A.
Stone OF Pennsylvania, tho Republican
member OF the subcommittee. dissontS
from the majority report ON the ground
that II Is an attempt to make "a judi
eiol ruling, but he had not an yet
submitted n minority report.
After reclting the Wen known fact
anu circumstances leading ~ - the
granting Of the two orders OF injunc-
ton by Judge Jenkins, the report pro-
cceda az follows;
Notwithstanding the suggestion of
the employees that they desired 20 con.
Ger. the orders Immediately obtained
without awaiting the results OF n con-
ference or being In possession OF any
definite Information OF the intention
OF the employees with respect 60 the
schedules upon which they solicited
conference, The original order rem
dercd ON the 18Th OF December had u
twofold aspect. II reduced existing
wages and onJolned and prohibited
those who were 10 receive them " they
remained In the service OF tho company
from quitting the service with or with
| out notice 80 as to cripple the property
or lnlure the operations of the road,
Rather Shady Court Record.
on being advised that II so ordered
or advised by the officers OF the organl-
cations to which they belonged the
men would quit the service IN a body
| and that under the obstruction plnccd
upon the existing order Cthe Injunction
| by those who had obtained 10, they
| would thereby commit n contempt OF
| court and wore liable to punishment
for 20 doing, the officers Of the COM
| pnny Immediately asked for and the
! Judge granted the second order OF IN
| Junction on the 2ad OF December. The
| object OF this was 10 insure 90 the
| company the compulsory services Of
the operatives then IN It's employ. be-
causc II under the first order Of In
| junction the men could not qult with
out being guilty OF contempt and would
| not do 10 unleas 20 ordered by the
| officers OF their several organizations,
/ and IL those officers were prohibited
from ordering, directing or advising
the strike, II was perfectly evident that
the officers so enJoined could not dis
~. 49, o NlA.aIF oil nn
and the men coulc not quit from be-
ing prohibited from doing so by the
| court and not authorized 10 do no by
the organizations by whose rules md
regulations they were governed.
Was Gross Abuse.
This waa the object sought 10 be OBJ
tanned. that the order was drawn to
enectuatc II. aud II was signed by the
Judge with that intent, the language OF
| the order and the concomitnnt circum.
| stances left no room for doubt. Your
| committee has no hesitation In declar-
Ing that the orders rendered were n
gross abuse Of the power Of the court,
were supported by neither reason nor
authority, We're beyond the Jurndic-
/ tlon Of the Judge and were therefore
| void. The second or supplementary
| writ was more responsible than the
| first because the Judge was advised be-
/ lbiF llf ffUufIFl u OF lIf tNutt NUlttAH
| and purposes sought TO be accom-
| pllshed. There was no suggestion m
either OF these letters OF any fear from
| Illegal acts but the certainty of auH-
| pension OF traffic Of an attending
damage TO the road and Inconvenience
| 10 the public were the sole reasons
urged for the action which the judge
took. Your committee also find that
| no measures looking 10 strike had
been innugurated nor does any seem
| TO have been in contemplation. nor
does It appear that any Of the persons
| nnmcd OF refarred 10 In the writs of In
| junction have remained IN the service
Of the company against their Will
Tafrs and RicI's order.
II does appear. however. that while
they regarded the writ void. they be-
iieyed that 80 TON, an II was In force
they were bound TO obey II under
penalty OF punishment for contempt II
| they violated II and this consideration
| might have been more effective than
they were aware of, inducing them
| 10 remain In the service VI thu
concur In the opinion Of the Judge that
the decisions rendered In the Toledo
| cases. page ~, federal reports, by
Judges TAFT and Riclss. nj all support
his contention IN the case under con
fldcration on the contrary both or the
caseg clearly recognized the principle
that courts NJ npuity cannot enforce
the Specific performance Of the con
tract for perEonnl service by wrlty OF
Injunction and other processes but that
ia auch canes the remedy IS AT law by
an action for damages.
They also clenrly recoGnize the right
OF the iaborlng people as a means OF
selling their lnbor Mt higher price, oi
coercing employees 20 accede TO thcii
demands. In determining the lawful
ness OF a proceeding OF this kind III,
fudge Justly takes the law az sustain.
mig The employe, and Inconvenience e
the general public cannot be consid
cred.
The HiEht 10 strike.
II employees have the lawful rlgh'
to combine in strike for the purpos'