The herald., 1894-04-07
JUDGE JENKINS STRIKE ORDER,
He Makes a Slight Modification
Of the Decree.
1t Remains in the Main Adverse to
Labor Unions.
The Right to Strike stIu Denied North
ern Pacific Empioyses-An Appeal
TO Bo Taken to the Bu-
preme Court.
nv iha Aasociatnd prna..

BY the Associated Press
MILWAUKEE, April 6--The decision oI
Judge Jenkins on the petition to modify
his famous strike order in the Northern
Pacific recsivership matter, which has
been expected for some time, was
handed down today.
The court room was crowded when
Judge Jenkins took his seat and the
judge had a more attentive audience
while he read the elaborate decision
than usually honors the reading OF de-
cisions in the United States court. H.
@. Payne was the only one of the re-
ceivers present in court. He was ac-
companied by George P. Miller, the To-
cal attorney for the receiver. The only
representative for the labor organizations
was Charles Quarlss. 1t took the Judge
nearly two hours to read the decision,
and at the conclusion court adjourned.
All the attorneys present pronounce
the decision q comprehensive and mag
terly analysis of the strike problem. At
torney Quarles, of course. was not
pleased with it, but said he had an.
ticipated the decision from the time the
petition for modification was argued.
The case will be appealed.
Before adjourning court Judge Jen-
kins said, as this question involved was
highly important one and it was desir-
able that it should be reviewed by the
court OF last resort, he would gladly CO.
operste with counsel in taking steps to
secure an appeal.
Justice Harlan said he would sit with
the appellate court in Chicago May 3lst,
and the appeal might be taken 30 ss to
have the case decided at that time.
The decision OF Judge jenkins, the
substance OF which is given below,
grants q technical modification of the
supplemental order asked for by the pc
titioners, while it recites more strongly
the position taken in the injunction or
der. The order to strike out the objec.
tionable clause In the supplemental in
junction, taken in connection with what
goes before, is q delicately pointed re-
buke to the counsel Tor the petitioners
for quibbling over the ambiguity OF q
clause the substance OF which is clearly
and strongly stated in the preceding
sentences. The decision upon the two
propositions Is elaborately elucidated.
These are the illegal purpose and char
acter of strike. which the order was to
prevent, and the authority OF the court
to prevent and punish illegal acts.
The decision modi6es the injunctional
orders by striking out the clause which |
reads: And from ordering, recon-
mending, approving or advising others
to quit the service of the Northern |
Pacific railway on June l. 1894, or any
other time" All other notifications sra
The petition asks for the modification
n n ~ ~. n,k- l.
expunging the words, ''and. fn- easgAis
ing and conspiring TO quit, with or
without notice, the service OF the said
receivers, with the object and intent Of
crippling the property In their custody
or embarrassing the operation OF the
road, and from 30 quitting said re-
ceivers, with or without notice, as to
cripple the property or to prevent or
hinder the operation Of said road"
The object of the motion was to bricg
to direct issue before the court the
question whether the court can grant
lnjunctions to restrain employees from
striking.
Judge Jenkins said "In the dis
cussion OF the important and interesting
question presented In the motion Ii is
not the province OF the court to assume
part in the contes. between capital
and labor which it is asserted is herein
involved. 1t may be that the aggravated
power OF combined capital IS fraught
with danger to the republic; 1t may be
that the aggravated power OF combined
labor is pefilous to the peace OF society
and the rights OF property. II doubtless
is true that in the contest the rights oil
both have been invaded, and that each
hae wrongs to be redressed. II danger
to the state exists from combination oi
capital or OF labor, it is within the pro-
vince of the Legislature to determine the
necessary remedy, but it ia the duty oil
the courts to restrain those warning fac
tione 30 far as their action may infringe
the declared law OF the land, that 30
ciety may not be disrupted. II the COM
bination and conspiracy alleged is un-
lawful, il cannot, think, be sucesss
fully denied that restraining by an in
junction lie an appropriate remedy. Tht
interference with the operations OF The
threatened railway. if carried into effect
would result in the parslyzing OF busi-
ness and stopping OF commerce, ebbinl
and flowing through seven states oil th'
union, working incalculable injury Il
.. property and causing great public priva
,, tions. Compensation could be obtained
'. only through a multiplicity OF suit
against the 2,O00 men scattered alon
the line OF the railway ior distance
4400 miles,"
The Judge then cited several authori
ties and continued that it would b
, anomalous indeed if the court holdin
this property in trust could not protec
a it from injury. AS to the violation
: individual rights of the employee:
I Judge Jenkina held that each employe
i of the road was an official OF the cour
4 and responsible 10 the court. Some {
y the men have threatened to quit th
= employ and use force upon other em
q ployees and prevent places from bein
filed. He could not see how the rC
straining order intericred with individ
ual rights, as they had right to de
1 cline the service. The restraint wa
0 only impaired with reference to com
/ bining.