The morning call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1878-1895, 1894-10-02
SOME HARD SENSE
Mr.. Justice Harlan on
Strikes.
ROUGH ON: JUDGE JENKINS,
Which Fact Is Not Altogether
Lamentable.
RAILROAD MEN ARE NOT SLAVES
They Have the Right to Quit Work
Singly or as an Organized
Bodies.
ROUGH ON JUDGE JENKINS,
MEN ARE NOT SLAVES


and the case remaDded. The directions
are to strike from the restraining order of
tire court the clause which aroused the
country when the order was issued, and
which resulted in the Boatner Investigat-
ing Committee of Congress. The inter-
venors, representing the leading labor
organizations of the country, asked that
Two sections of the injunction be elimi-
mated. The Court Of Appeals decided that
no court could prevent man or body Of
men quitting individually or in body the
service of an employer. The court SAID
that Judge jenkins mad exceeded his pow
ers when he njoined the employees of the
receivers of the Northern Pacific Company
from quitting the service of said company,
with or without q office, SO as to cripple the
pr perty or hinder the proper operation of
SAID road.
He held however, that the section
should stand in which the men were pr O.
hibited from combining and conspiring 20
quit, with or Without notice, the service of
said receivers with the object and intent
Of Gripping the property In their custody
or embarrassing the operations of said
railroad. The decision was con sidered by
the lawyers who packed the courtroom as
one Of the most important opin ions deliv-
cred in the United States in decade. 1t
defines the status before the law of labor
organizations in their conduct of strikes
and affirms the rights of courts of equity
10 Interfere by injunction where there is
reason TO believe the law would be Vo-
lated. 1t holds that the men may with
draw in a body from the service Of an en-
ployer, using, however, neither force,
threats nor intimidation toward employees
who do not join them, nor must they use
any device" to modest, hinder or alarm
or interfere with others who desire to take
their places. e
Justice Harlan Of the Supreme Court de-
liyered the opinion and sitting with him
were Judges Woods, Grosscup and Jep-
kins. Judge jenkins appeared unds-
turbed by the opinion. The audience
listening to the reading Of the opinion was
most distinguished one. Ex-President
p Harrison and his partner, Mr.. Elan. sat
side by side well up toward the bench.
After disposing of other cases. the findings
of the court being merely announced by
Judges Woods and Jenkins, Justice Har-
Ian began The reading OF the opinion in the
case of p n. Arthur ct AL. iuteryeners,
against Thomas F. Cakes, Henry c. Payne
aud Henry c. Rouse, receivers of the
Northern Pacific Company, as the ceie-
br@ ted case is known on the docket.
Justice Harlan before giving the COB
illusions of the court reviewed the history
Of the celebrated mum elton. The reeeiy-
ers of the road in Decem Der last gave
notice of a reduction of wages all along
the line, and when the men threatened to
strike Judge jenkins issued the Djunet On
on December 10. preventing strike. Two
days later he amended the Injunction,
making it more stringent. The Brother
hood Of Locomotive Engineers joined with
the other labor organizations to which the
men belonged and applied to Judge Jen-
kins for a modification Of the order
Judge jenkins refused to strike out the
clause enlOin!ng strike and the labor
unions appealed TO the higher court.
The decision says that the in Injunction
against employees so quitting as TO cripple
the properly or prevent or hinder the
operation of the road was equivalent to a
command by the court that they should
remain under the active employment Of
the receivers a1d perform the service ap-
prorrlate TO their respective positions
untll they could quit without crippling the
road. The time when they could quit was
not indicated by the order of the court
''Under what circumstances" says the
decision, ''may the employees of the re-
ceiVers OF right quit the service in which
they were engaged? Much of the argu-
ment of the counsel was directed to this
question. We shall not attempt to lay
down any rule applicable to every case that
may arise between employer and en-
ployes. Ii an employe quits without cause
and In violation of an express contract to
serve stated time then his quitting would
not be OF right. But the vital question re-
mains whether a court of equity will I'M
der any circumstances by injunction pre-
vent one individual from quitting the per-
sonal service Of another. An affirmative
answer to this question, is not, we think,
justified by any authority to which our at
tention has been called or of which we
are aware. 1t would be an invasion of
ones natural liberty to compel him to
work for or remain ia the personal SER
vices Of another. One who is placed in
such restraint Is in condition of invo,un-
tary servitude-a condition which the Su.
preme Court and the laws of the land de-
clare shall not exs. anywhere within
the jurisdiction of the United States"
The decision then goes on to discuss
WuCUuOl tHo tuo property ll-
volged was a railway, with public duties
to perform, gave the court the right to re-
strain men from quitting. The receivers.
the decision declares, had the right to
make a new schedule of wages and offer It
to the men with tie alternative of accent
ing il. or quitting the service. The men
had the right to accept or refuse and to
quit if they were not willing to WORK for
less wages. The court should have elimi-
mated the words "and from so quitting the
service OF the said receivers with or with
out notice as to cripple the property or
prevent or hinder the operation of the
road"
But different considerations must con-
troll" said Justice Har an. Gin respect to
the words in the same paragraph of The
injunction, 'and from combin ing and con-
Spring to QUIT with or without notice, the.
service of said receivers with the object
and intent Of cIippling the property in
their custody or embarrassing the opera
tioD OF the road We have said that If
the employees were unwilling to remain In
the service for the compensation pre-
scribed for them by the revised schedule
1t will be the right of each on that account
to withdraw from the service"
The decision discussed the right of en-
ployes to strike as follows: 1.-THE general
Inhibition upon combinations and con-