The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1894-05-05

AOEe1 NOT 1eCO1nDenUeu-lr Is
Cutie Possible That His Acts Were
Sincere-But They We're Wrong.
Washington, May Representative
Boatner, chairman of the special COM
mittee Of the House judiciary commit
tee appointed to investigate the North
ern Pacific decisions of Judge Jenkins,
today submitted to the full judiciary
committee the majority report of the
special committee.
The report was discussed for two
hours, but no action was taken by the
fulI committee. The report was made
the special order for the full commit
tee next Tuesday.
Eepresentative w. A. Stone, of Penn
sylvania, the Republican member of
the committee, dissents from the ma
Jorlty report on the ground that it is
an attempt to make a judicial ruling,
but he has not yet submitted a minor
ity report.
After reciting the we'll known facts
and circumstances leading up to the
granting of the two orders of injunc-
ton by Judge Jenkins, the majority
report proceeds as follows:
The Majority Report.
Notwithstanding the suggestion of
the employees that they desired to
confer, the orders were Immediately
obtained without waiting the results
| OF conference or being in possession
OF any definite information of the in
tention of the employees with respect
to the schedules upon which they So
l1cited conference. The original or
der received on December 10 had a
two-fold aspect. 1t reduced existing
wages and enjoined and prohibited
those who were to receive them if they
remained in the service of the COM
pany, from quitting the service with
or without notice; cripple the property
| or 1nJure the operating of the road.
On being advised that if so ordered or
advised by the officers Of the organiza-
ton to which they belonged the men
would quit the service in a body and
under the constructions placed upon
! the existing order (the Injunction by
those who had obtained it, they would
thereby commit a contempt of court
and were liable to punishment for so
doing, the officers of the company inn
mediately asked for and the judge
granted the second order of injunc-
| ton, December %. The object of this
was to insure to the company the COM
pulsory views of the opera tives then
| in its employ, because under the first
order of injunction the men could not
quit without being guilty of contempt
! and would not do so unless ordered by
| the officers Of their several organiza-
tons, and if these officers were pro-
hibited from advising the strike, it
was perfectly evident that the officers
so enjoined could not discharge this
function of their office and the men
could not quit when prohibited from
SO doing by the court and not author
lied to do so by the organiza ton by
whose rules and regulations they were
governed This was the object sought
| to be obtained: that the order was
signed by the judge with that intent;
the language Of the order and the
lconcomitant circumstances left no
room for doubt.
Gross Abuse of Power.
Your committee has no hesitation in
| declaring that the orders rendered were
a gross abuse of the power of the
court; were supported by neither rea-
son nor authority; were beyond the jul
risdiction of the judge and We're there
fore void. The second or supplement-
airy writ was more reprehensible than
the first, because the judge was ad-
vised before he rendered it of the ex-
! act object and purpose sought to be
accomplished. There was no sugges-
ton in either of these letters of any
fear of Illegal acts, but the fear from
suspense of traffic, of an attending
damage to the road and inconvenience
to the public were the sole reasons for
the action which the judge took. Your
committee also finds that no measures
| looking to a strike had been inaugur-
ated nor does any seem to have been
! in contemplation, nor does it appear
that any of the persons named or re-
| ferred to in the writ of injunction have
remained in the service of the company
! 1rraf, ,-t t1aai,. xr-i11
however. that while they regarded the
writ void, they believed that so long
as it was in force they were bound to
obey it under penalty of punishment or
contempt if they violated it, and this
| consideration might have been more
effective than they were aware of in
| inducing them to remain in the service
| Of the receivers.
your committee does not concur in
the opinion of the judge that the de-
cision rendered in the Toledo cases,
page "a, federal reports by Judges Taft
and Kicks ct al, support the conten-
ton in the case under consideration.
On the contrary, both of the cases
clearly recognize the principle that
courts of equity cannot enforce the
specific performance of the contract for
personal service by writs of injunction
and other processes, but that in such
cases the remedy is at law by an action
for damages" They also clearly recog-
nize the right of the laboring people,
as a means of selling their labor at a
higher price, of coercing employers to
accede to their demands. In detecting
the lawfulness Of a proceeding of this
kind. the judges justly take the law as
sustaining the employee and incon-
venience to the general public cannot
be considered.
Lawful Rights Defined
If employees have the awful right
! to combine in a strike for the purpose
of forcing compliance with their de-
mands or securing the highest wages
and best terms possible, that right can
not be removed by the fact that it's
exercise levied on the interests of
others. Its priRciple applies, of course,
| only to those strikes which exist in the
Withdrawal from service by concerted
combination. Should violence be done
to the person or property of the en-
| ployer by those who have combined
against him; if others would supply the
service which the strikers have aban-
doned and are prevented from doing so
by violence. intimidation, threats or
! other unlawful means; these acts are
not only unlawful, but in most in
stances would constitute violations of
| the criminal laws and be punishable as
such
The conclusion of the Judge that the
employees of the Northern Pacific