The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1894-10-02
HE OPINION.


The questions before MS relate to the
powers OF court OF equity-haying Gus
tuuy, by receivers, Of the railroad and
other property of a COrpordtOn-to en-
JON cohSpirdCles or acts ou the part of
the receivers, employees and their dsSO-
ciates in labor organizauUus which, ii
hot restrained, would DO irreplrable mis-
chief 10 such property, and prevent the
receivers from dl5chIrGlug the duties
imposed by law upon the corporation.
ne injunction against employees so
quitting as 10 cripple the property or
prevent or hinder the operation of the
idilrodd was equivalent TO q command
by the court that they should remain IN
active employment Of the receivers and
perform tie services appropriate 10 their
respective positions until they could
Withdraw without CrippIiug the property
or preventing the operation. of the road.
Ihe vital question Is whether u court
OF equity, VINO, under any circumstances ,
py injunction, prevent one individual
from quitting the personal service OF an
other. An affirmative answer 10 this
question Is not We think. justified by
any authority 10 which our attention has
Deen called, OF which we are aware
An INVASION OF LIBtErY.
1T would be an invasion Of ones nat
urdl liberty TO compel him to work OF TO
remain In the personal service of another.
one VINO Is placed under such a con
straint is in a condition Of involuntary
servitude-a condition which the Supreme
Court Of the United States declares shah
not exist The rule, we think Is, with
out exception. that equity will not com
pei the actual affirmative performance
ny an emplne OF merely personal ser
wees any more than II will compel an
employer to retain In his personal ser
vice one who FOR no matter what cause,
is nor acceptable 10 him for service Of
lhat character. Undoubtedly the Slmul-
tdueous cessation of work by any cOnaid-
cradle number Of railroad employees With
out previous notice VIII have an injurious
elect, and for a time Inconvenience the
public. But these evils, great as they
are. are 10 be met and remedied by legis-
iahOn, restraining alike employees and
employers. I'm the absence OF such lcsiS-
latlon the right OF one in the service Of
a qudSl-public corporation To Withlra W
theretrom whenever he sees tit must be
deemed SO far absolute that courts of
equity cannot interfere.
The result of these views is that the
court below should have eliminated from
the writ OF injunction the words and
~. .u So quitting .'s- service Of said rr.
ctiVcrs without nOicc, SO as 10 cripple
operation Of said railroad.
1T is one thing. however. for a single
individual or several individuals. each
acting Oh his own responsibility to quit
work. and quite different thing in the
eye OF the law for many persons TO
combine or cOuspire together with the
Intent, not simply OF asserting their
rights by peaceable methods. bur Of em-
Iioylug their united efforts h Injure
others or the public.
ANY CONSPIRACY ILLEGAL.
"Tt seems entirely clear that any COM
binatiun or conspiracy on the part Of
these employees would be Illegal which
had for lis object the Gripping II prop
erty IN the hands OF receivers. either
by disabling property by obatruetins
a troll ma .tf..rf MON Z
property. or by using force,
intimidation or wrongful methods against
employees remaining I'm the service 20
induce them 10 quit the service. Combl-
nations OF this character disturb the
peace Of society and are miSchieVOuS in
the extreme. They imperil the interest
OF the public and endanger the personal
liberty and personal security of indiyd-
uals. who, In. the exercise OF the IN
alicnable privilege Of choosing the term
upon which they shall labor enter or
attempt TO enter the service Of those
against whom such combinations are
aimed. The Circuit Court. therefore.
properly framed its injunction so as 10
restrain all acts specifically mentioned.
We are Of the opinion that the civil
Court properly refused % strike from
the writs OF injunction the words: And
from combining or COnspirnS 10 quht the
service Of receivers with the object or
Gripping the property f. their custody
DECLINED To EAss UPON IT.
Justice Harlan declined to pass upon
the question whether the court pad JH-
risdicton in this case under me sherman
Antitrust act OF lS9o-the principal ques-
ton a issue in the Debs contempt case. case.
AuCug those who heard the opinion
read was ex-President harrison. me
United states court Of Appeals has con
tinred the case Of Debs and the other
directors of the American Railway l NC Il
who took an appeal from the Woods
Grosscup injunction. restraining them
from interfering with railroad property
during the recent strike, 10 the next Term
of court, at the request OF the defendants.
ANOTHER DC SION REVERSED
CHICAGO, oct THE Uuited states
Court OF Appeals to-day reversed JGdse
BICdgett's decision I'm the suit Of West
against Huiskamp. for possession Of the
Chicago Times property, and referred
the litigation 10 master In chancery ior
settlement. Judge Blodgetts decision
favored the Huiskdmps.