The Helena independent. [volume] (Helena, Mont.) 1875-1943, 1894-05-01
Supreme Cour. Not Sure Of Juris-
diclion in the Grea. North
ern Strike.
Brief Setting Forth tho Grounds
on Which 1 Was Exp 20 cd
70 Got IL.
Judge KNOWLES Gives the Men Tiu Mon-
day Neat 60 Answer Anidavits In
the iuiunction.

Great Northern railway 10 operate its lines
OF railway Ia this state. The application
VS. made on behalf OF the state by Attor-
ney General Haskell. The opinion Of the
court which IS coucurrsd in by all the JUS
tees. ia as follows
ct on this petition the attorney general
asks this court % issu, a writ OF manda-
mus add essed 60. ana commanding the
Great Northern Railway company 60 oper-
ate its lines OF railway in this state. as 10
had been accustomed 20 do prior 60 the l31h
day OF April. 1891 when such operations
ceased altogether. as described IN she petit
tion. 20 the end that the public shall not
be inoonvenieacsd ami damaged by depri-
walton % the use Of this quasi Iublie
agency OF commerce travel and oommuni-
cation.
TN making this application counsel on
behalf Of the petition admit fact OF
general notoriety too-that the cessation Of
operation OF said railway was occasionsd
by general refusal of TIE employees Of said
company engaged in operating the same up
20 shat dats TO serve the company for the
wages proposed 20 be raid. aud because OF
tie disagreement on that subject the en-
ployes on said lines weat out on what IS
known as a general strike" awaiting an
adjustment Of that controversy.
The petition alleges that sufl lent
competent ok lful ana experienced men
are available. ready and willing 20 Sc We
ssid COMPANY 10 the operation Of said road.
for reasonable compensation; and this Is
admitted 20 be the main predicate upon
which q decision IN this proceeding would
turn, II the court entertains the p;ocsediug
IL is therefore proposed that this court
shall inquire ami dete mine what would be
schedule OF reasonable wages for corps
otskilcd aud unakilled employees necessary
60 operate said railway, aud then ascertain
whetne the requisite numb-r OF employees
can be procured et she wages determined,
an1 y that fact - found TO be true, as al
legged, then command the operation Of saIi
iallway under the penalties attached to
dlsOoedieuce OF tbs " 10 OF mandamus
those questions mentioueI must be de- .
termlned by the court upon propes inquiry
whether tbs espondeut should ansWes and .
traverse the allegations OF sue petition, or
no; because the court, before sending forth
thls extraordinary wit, will by careful IN
uulrY, become satisfied Of IFS own lurlsllc- .
ton. AID that the conditions are such that
the act commanded Is feasible OF perform .
ance.
III the PROPOSED scheme is feasible. and
the court has Jurisdiction TO cary 10 out, 10
I
wards the solution OF a problem o. great
nom NJ to all "a ties concsi ned. But |
aside from the relations % this property To /
interstate ia lsdictiOn, as showl By the
averments u the petition allealy asserted 7
| by the United States court TO some extent .
tue difficulty is shat this cou DOES not. al
present. possess jurisdiction for the abitFs- /
intnt Of the question involved. as agors- /
said, and having ascertained what IS Just ia /
the PREMISES TO enforce the SEINE upon
contendlug parties.
The Ems may come when the stat, ~
that Is the national Covernm nt.-5y reason .
Of ita interstate Jurlsdicti0u, may By T
proper PROVISIONS OF law. come into the
attitude Of permanent trustee OF sucA I
property 80 vitality related TO the welfare F..
Of she Whole people, instead Or the ooca- I
gional exc ciss OF trusteeship By receivers
when the property has bGeome financially
sVamped, anl then the proper courts will 4
be GuthO II01 % lutrrpOs8 an equitable F..
authority IN tlte6-fold direction for the /
O dCTly cor ectiou Cf the abuses existing
toward employees anu investors (mino ity
as we'll mo 10 llty 6tOUkLollefsl Of the vast
capital Involved ia such prol erty, ana also .
towards the public as patrons the cot.
~ or the reasons suggested We must deny T
this application. The Uses called 20 our
attention lead % ttis conclusion also. All /
coucur."
lie position Of the petitioner and the T
authorities upOn which he reIe ,, IRE set .
forth iu b ief files Dy counso . aud which .
lec.tss tina: "itHiliOlu Ars essential 90 the /
y ospefi'y % the state. For tuis reason I
tLey nrs granted b. the state valuable /
rights and franchises, among otne tue I
right Of eminent domain and the right 10 F
o, crate and run their trains. ] he grant OF I
thes. public bouutlsa 20 rairosd com
any Dol. LoWeye ia oil casss sublsct 20
the lm 81 ed condition that the grantee shall /
assume an Obligation 20 maintain its rail- I
d. a. hnr .rf fur 70 h
public. And hGvin2 accepted ths bountiss
OF the law. the obligation 90 perform ita
dates TO the public Will he enforced BY
msndamus.
In the case Of this PEOPLE vsrsus the New
YORK teltral, the company ansWsrel that q
strike Was IA progress on their system and
that they could not operate. The c0nclu-
sion OF the cOuft expressed in the follow /
lug language: These facts reduce the /
queatiun 20 THIS Can railroad corporations /
refuse or neglect 90 reform their public /
duties upon cont OVersy with Their em- 1
uloge es over tho cost o. expense OF dong /
them. We .hiuk tnis question admits Of
but oue answer. The excuse has Ia law no T
valility. Tho dutles imposed must DO dis /
charged 90 whatever coat. lh5V cannot be /
laid down or abandoned 0r suspended with 7
oqt the legally tHlfssssd consent Of ths
state. '
After quoting numerous other autAori- !
ties tlo bFlef savs. "lhese cnsos assert the !
role q DO. g. at - asnevsr the light sought
g. De enforced o. one which Affects the peo-
8 ls % tAe state 90 large. or any cousidora-
bio 30 ton 81 them, tho supreme court
shall nssume original Jurisdiction. and all
. cases brought b. tue attorney general 20
naasrt right claimsd bY the state are
ought pa thu supreme court Of states ia
which that court sutsrtalua original iuris-
Gictiou.
We respectfully sugget shat no injury
cen esult 70 ouy one 90 the court issues sue
alternative writ 10 commits Itself 20 no
policy or re q by granting the writ aud
d uton tho retu o., any objections which may
I De- vallIly taken aIainat the proceedings
may b urged against them in tho unms
I uauncr md With equal force a. DO no " 10
lad been iasuei. lilo alternative writ IL.
I iu fact, only in eject 20 show cnuse."
j he nltsd States court was oVdel
20 .teTduY With Great Northern men, 10 see
the outcome 81 tho hearing 90 require the
leaders - tue strike 90 SHOW cause why
th9g should NOS be enIOiuei from interfer-
T ING With the operations and property o.
size company. he strikes were Tfprr.
aented by i. =. Welsh. X. Il. Purc1it. * a.
smith aud q. a.. Newman. a. j. -hores Il
Great fllla aud ID. a.. Mclutlre repre-
ssuted the c1muany. When the case ur..
callei 81. shores produced some nni laylts.
ia suppuit o. Lls appl cation TO- an IuIuue-
tion. Mr. wash bI8cteI Oh tie grDuui
that tho defendants lad rspa % their nu.
sWer, and were nov met Wan hthdaVIts %
which they did not know tho coutrut-
Judge hnoWles ruled shat the oontaar
could bring proofs 80 sustain she aiIry--
tious 90 their complaint. ILs a-fsu.e
took 90 excertiou 60 this ruling.