The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1894-04-11

Not being an executive officer, said
Mr.. Arnold. Il can answer that frank
~ in the affirmative
Chief Clark was recalled, and Mr..
Stone took him in hand. The congress
man asked if it was not the desire and
purpose of these organizations to get
in their ranks all men of their class; in
other words. to form trust or nlonop-
oily as a monopoly of money or capital,
so as to control absolutely their differ
ent lines of work.
Mr.. Clark answered in the aff1rma-
tive.
There followed quite discussion in
which Mr.. Boatner and Mr.. Stone, of
the committee, and MIR. Clark, took
part, in which Mr.. Clark stated eXplic-
lltly what the laboring men obje.e-ed to
in Judge Jenkins decision. The objec-
lions, which were two, lay against the
clause prohibiting the men to quit
work with or without notice, in any
way to cripple the road and The clause
restraining the labor chiefs from adj
vising and comforting with the men.
! The feature of the afternoon session,
in fact the chief factor of The day, was
ex-senator Spooner's examination.
Mr.. Spooner was preceded by D. G..
Ramsay, who gave testimony similar
to that of the other chiefs, relative to
methods of ordering a strike and to the
effect upon his organization Of the
strike ordered
The question addressed to Mr.. Spoon
er headed at once toward the author
ship of the injunction.
L partly prepared the first injunc-
ton" said Mr. Spooner, land the or
der was probably written by counsel,
Though l do not recollect whether L as
sisted Mr.. Miller in writing it,
How long did Judge Jenkins hold
the petition under Amusement before
it was issued?' Mr.. Boatner asked.
From Monday morning until Tues
day morning."
Mr.. Spooner then proceeded to tell
all he knew about the preparation and
issuance of the order. He was tele-
graphed for to go to st. Paul on the
18th of December, and there met Cen
eral Manager Kendrick. He informed
him of the proposed reduction in
| wages, which in the condition of the
road seemed necessary. Kendrick
stated that the majority of the emf
ployees of the road appreciated the con-
dition of affairs and would not object
to reduced wages. There was an ele-
ment, however, which threatened to
strike if the new schedules went into
effect, destroy the engines and damage
the property. Some OF tie men, Ken
drick said, questioned the right of the
receivers to change The wage schedule
Mr. Kendrick lad not told the re-
ceivers of this states of affairs, and
Mr.. Spooner advised him 10 90 SO at
once.
The next Mr.. Spooaer heard of the
matter was a telegram to come to
Milwaukee to meet Receivers Payne,
Cakes and Rouse.
Mr.. Kendrick Vas there, and they
consulted about the new schedule ard
. In n II
!. new schedule Mr.. i>pooner had a hand
in preparing FOR submission 10 the
court. He dictated part of Il and Mr.
Miller a part. He presented the matter
r to Judge Jenkins in cha-Jrbcr5 and
called his attention to the portion
; which might be open to discussion but
which he (Spooner) told the Judge was
sustainable and referred t. Judge Par
dee's decision - fortify his position
: He told the judge Of the threatehed
: trouble by men along thu road because
of the new schedule. The Judge took
: the matter under advisenea. and or
: Tuesday issued the order n 5 prayed.
Mr.. Boatner asked if it was the com.
mon practice in western courts fol
judges to issue permanent injunction:
eX parte in chambers, and Mr.. Spoonel
5 replied that it was not the practice
: anywhere, and that the injunction al
5 lowed was not permanent nor was i
meant to be.
= Mr.. Spooner was in the chair fol
5 more than an hour. His explanation
} of the order and what it was meant
to accomplish put a different phase up
= on it from what the labor chiefs eX
= pressed.
Mr.. Curtis, one of the counsel for the
[ receivers was the last witness called
before adjournment His testimony wa!
unimportant.