The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1894-04-11
With Attorney Miller, of the Northern
Pacific, He Dictated the Order and
the Judge Issued 1t.
CLOSE OF THE INVESTIGATION
Testimony of Mr.. SpOOner and the
Brotherhood Chiefs.
Latter All Agreed that They We're Pre-
vented from Exercising Their Con-
stitutiOnal Rights.

ONhnAAAo lnNCSl4SdNIOh - N"O 1ACooC
mittee of the judiciary came to
a sudden end SO far as Milwaukee is con-
cerned, at 5 o'clock. tonight. All of the
witnesses subpoenaed were examined, and
as there was no documentary evidence to
go over, there was nothing else to do, and
the affair will now continue in Washing
ton. The witnesses to-day were Chiefs
Wilkinson, of the trainmen; Clark, of the
conductors; Sargent, of the fremen;
Ramsey, of the telegraphers; Secretary Ar
mold, Of the firemen; attorney George j.
Miller, General Manager Kendrick, Re-
ceiver Cakes, ex-senator Spooner and at
torney w. ]. Curtis. of the Northern Pa
cifc railroad. The chief interest was CEN
tered In Mr.. Spooner's testimony. He teSti-
fed that he, with attorney Miller, had die
tated the petition for the first injunction
which forbade the employees of the Northern
Pacific from striking and also the order
which was issued by Judge Jenkins. He
said this was customary among attorneys
In like cases. He said, however. that he
had nothing to do with the supplementary
injunction. Mr.. Spooner said he took for
the basis of the order for the injunction a
decision by Judge Pardee, of the federal
court, in the Higgins case, but attorney
Curtis admitted, in answer to a question
ny dllOTHty I1dipOi tho thNAN q AO
precedent for Judge Jenkins's order. There
was some lively parleying between Mr..
SpoOner and attorney Harper, who repre-
scented the labor chiefs. The testimony of
the labor chiefs was similar to that of
Chiefs Clark and Sargent yesterday They
all agree that the injunctions Prevented
them from exercising their constitutional
rights.
Chief Wilkinson, of the Brotherhood OF
Railway Trainmen, was the trst witness
conference Of the Northarn Pacific en-
ployes at the time of the threatened strike.
The men had thought they could not leave
the employ of the railway. After a great
deal of discussion as to the right of the
chiefs to consult with the men, he and his
associates came to the conclusion that they
could not advise the men to leave the en-
ploy of the receivers, but could advise them
to remain.
Under cross-examination by Congressman
Stone, Mr.. Wilkinson said a strike ordinar-
lily required a months time to start. He
denied that he had any power to order a
strike without action by the employees.
There are $4,000 trainmen in the United
States and about so per cent. of them be-
long to the order. Replying TO a question
whether there had been any violence in the
strike, Mr.. Wilkinson said there had been
no violence, and violence does not always
accompany strikes. He thought he had a
legal right to confer with the employees of
the Northern Pacific road, to order a strike,
bat the road, being in the hands of re-
ceivers affected his right to some extent.
He realized if he came in contact with the
court he should be liable to Imprisonment.
Mr.. Wilkinson thought the injunction had
denied all his rights. He was familiar with
the Northern Pacific road, and knew the ty-
ing up of the road would result in public
hardship at certain points. He would not
admit that he had ever sanctioned an illegal
strike, and that there could be an illegal
strike when regularly ordered by the order.
Mr.. Wilkinson admitted that a strike was
meant to enforce the claims of the men,
but he said it was never used to enforce
unjust claims.
WOULD NOT COMMIT HIMSELF.
The witness was staggered by a question
put by Mr.. Curtis, who asked: rs it
proper to order a strike for the purpose of
coercing a court operating a road?' He
hesitated a long time, and finally said he
did not like to commit himself on that
point.
When this examination had been con-
cluded. Mr.. Wilkinson said he desired to
make a statement. He said the men had
thought If the court should reduce their
wages 10 per cent and compel them to
work, it could reduce the wages 80 per cent.
and there be no end to 1t. He said he
did not think the court had any more right
than a company had to compel the men TO
work, whether it had power or not. In
answer to a question put by Mr.. Terry,
Mr.. Wilkinson said the men considered the
labor organizations of very great import
ance, hat without them they would be lit;
the enforcement of the jenkins order would
tend to destroy the unions, and he thought
II tCtlNtfS VI lnS IOdd ( DChl upon
destroying the usefulness OF the organiza-
lions for the time being at least
MT; Wilson, CHIEF OF the Switchmen,s
testimony somewhat similar as to the ma
ture of his organization and its relations
to the men. He said the men were trying
to effect a settlement with the receivers
when Judge Jenkinss order was issued:
Mr.. Wilson said his men were satisfied
with the receivers schedule and their OBJ
lection TO the injunction was principally be-
cause 1t established a bad precedent. He
did not think the court had a right TO COM
ended with a denial of the report that the
men had intended to strike on the North
ern Pacific.
Frank Arnold. secretary of the firemen's
brotherhood, was then called. He admitted
that violence usually accompanied strikes,
Mr.. Arnold was asked by attorney Cur
tbs If it were not true that among the
stronger and better labor organlzatlons
strikes were discouraged, and II they were
not generally considered an evil. The an
swer was In the Affirmative. Mr.. Boatner
ssrvatism of the executive officers did not
have much to do with keeping the labor
organizati4ns in good c ssid %r I aT06l6 9e'n ni
can answer that frankly In the aff1rma-
tive" In reply to further questions Mr..
railroad men had done much TO promote
intelligence and morality among them, and
today he considered the average OF intel
than among other workingmen. 1t was his
experience that where violence nad Deen
used during strike and property de-
stroyed it was by hangers on. on the out
side. the lawless element which always
turns UP during a disturbance.
Chies Clark was recalled and Mr.. Stone
took him in hand. The Congressman asked
IL il were not the desire and purpose OF
these organizations TO get in their ranks
all men of their class. in other words. to
form a trust or monopoly, as a monopoly
Of money or OF capital, so as TO control
absolutely their different lines of work.
NJ. Clark answered in the affirmative.
There followed here quite a discussion, in
which Mr.. Boatner and Mr.. Stone, of the
committee, and Mr.. Clark took part. Mr..
Clark stated just what the labor men Oh
iecte1 TO in Judge Jenkins'S decision. The
objections were twO-against the clause
prohibiting the men TO quit work with or
without notice in a way to cripple the
road and the clause restraining the labor
chiefs from advising and comforting with
the men.
The feature of the afternoon session, in
fact the chief feature of the day. was ex-
Senator Spooner's examination. Mr.. Spoon
er was preceded by D.. q. Ramsay, grand
chief of the railway telegraphers, who gave
testimony similar to that of the other
chiefs, relating to methods of ordering a
strike and to the effect upon this organiza-
ton of the strike order.
MIR. SPOONER'S TESTIMONY.
Chairman Boatner explained to Mr..
Spooner that they Gid not wish TO ask him
questions which would. If answered, violate
his relations to his clients.
Il waive all objections" said Mr.. Spoon