The Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1868-1895, 1894-10-03

were not willing to work for less wages.
The court should have eliminated the
words, 'and from so quitting the service
of the said receivers. with or without no.
tice, as TO cripple the property or pre-
vent or hinder the operation Of the road
But different considerations must con-
trol.' said Justice Harlan, in respect 10
the words in the same paragraph or the
injunction, and from combining and con-
spring TO quit, with or without notice.
the service of said receiver. with the
object and intent Of Gripping the prop
erty in their custody or embarrassing the
operation of the road We have said that
II the employees were unwilling 10 remain
in the service for the compensation pre-
scribed for them by the revised schedules,
it was the right OF each one on that ac-
count 10 withdraw from the service
The decision discussed the right Of
employees To strike. as follows:
The general inhibition upon combina-
tons and conspiracieS formed with the
object and intent OF Gripping the prop
erty and embarrassing the operation OF
the railroad must De construed as referring
only 10 acts Of violence intimidation and
wrong. We 90 not interpret the words
last above quoted as embracing the case
OF employees. who. being dissatisfied with
the proposed reduction of their wages.
mercy withdraw on that account, singiy
or by concerted action, from the service
Of the receivers. using neither force,
threats, persecution nor intimidation to-
ward employees who do not join them, nor
any device to molest hinder alarm or In
terfere with others who take or desire
to take their places. These employees hav-
ing taken service first with the company
and afterward with the receivers under
a general contract Of employment. which
did not limit the exercise Of the right 10
quit the service. their peaceful co-opera-
ton as thu result OF friendly argument,
persuasion or conference among them
selves. In asserting the right Of each and
all to refuse further service under a sched-
ule of reduced wages would not have been
Illegal or criminal, although they may have
so acted in the firm belief and expectation
that a simultaneous quitting without no
tice would temporarily inoonvenienc6 the
receivers and the public.
IF in good faith and pe1ceably they
exercise their right Of quitting the serv-
ice. intending thereby only 10 better
their condition by securing such wages
as they deem just, but not 10 injure or
interfere with the free action of others.
they cannot be legally charged with any
loss to the trust properly resulting from
their cessation Of work in consequence
Of the refusal Of the receivers TO accede
20 the terms upon which they are willing
to remain in the service. Such a loss
under the circumstances stated. would
be incidental TO the situation and could
not be attributed 10 employees exercising
lawful rights in orderly ways or 10 the
receivers who in good faith and in fidei-
ity to their trust. declared a reduction Of
wages and thereby caused dissatisfaction
among employees and their withdrawal
from service"
The opinion concluded by holding that
the act Of congress of July 2 1890, 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 indicated in the opin-
ion.