The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1894-10-02
Assured to Railroad Men by {.
s. Court of Appeals.
JUDGE JENKINS TURNED DOWN.
The Anfi-ssrfks Tnjaaeffen Declared TO
BE- I'm Conflict with the consssfa-
tion, which Prohibits slavery.

eating committee OF congress- ins
inssrvenors, representing the lead
ing labor organizations Of tho
country, asked that two sectors Of the IN
junction be eliminated. The court OF sp-
peals decided that no court could hinder
man or body OF men from quitting indi-
yidualiy or in 8 body the service OF an
employer. Tho court said that Judge
Jenkins had exceeded his powers
when be enioined the employees oil
the receivers Of the Northern PACING
from quitting the service of said company,
with or without notice. 30 as 20 cripple
the property or hinder the proper opera
ton OF said road. He held. however, that
the section should stand In which the men
were prohibited from combining and con-
spring 10 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 opera
tions Of said road.
The decision was considered by the law
yers who packed the court room as one oil
the most importan. opinions delivered In
the United States in decade. lie defines
the status before the law Of labor
organizations in their conduct OF
strikes, and afiirms the rights OF
eonrts of equity 20 interfere oy
Injunction where there IL reason TO
believe the Law would be- violated. IL
holds that men may withdraw IN body
from the service of an employer; adding,
however, neither force. threats nor intimi-
daiion toward employees who do not join
them, nor must they use any device TO
mo!sst. hinder or alarm or interfere with
Others who desire To take their places.
Justice Harlan, of the supreme court,
delivered the opinion. Sitting with him
we're Judges Woods. Grosscup and Jen-
kins. Judge jenkins appeared undis-
tnrbed by the opinion. The audience
that listened to the reading OF the opinion
was a most distinguished one. Ex-
President Harrison and his partner,
Mr.. Eam, sat side by side, we'll
up toward the bench. After dispos-
ing of other cases the findings
OF the court were merely announced by
Judges Woods an d Jenkins, and Justice
Harlan began the reading of the opinion
OF the case OF 4. NJ. Arthur ct al. inter
venors. against Thomas +. Cakes. Henry
c. Payne aud Henry G. Rouse. receivers,
as the celebrated case is known on the
docket.
The decision says that the injunction
against employees so quitting as 10 cripple
the property or hinder the operation of
the road was equivalent to q command by
the court that they should remain under
the active employment of the receivers
and perform the service appropriate TO
their respective positions until they could
quit without gripping the road. The
time when they could quit was not indi-
Gated by the order of the court. Under
what circumstances" says the decision.
''may the employees of the receivers have n
right 10 quit the service in which they
were engaged Much Of the argument of
counsel was directed TO this question. We
shall not attempt 10 lay any rule applica-
BILE TO every case that may arise between
employer and employees. IL an employs
quits without cause, and in violation of an
express contract TO serve for q stated
time. then his quitting would not be of
right. But the vital question remains
whether court of equity may, under any
circumstances, by injunction prevent one
Individual from quitting the personal
service of another. An affirmative answer
10 this question Is not. We think. justified
by any authority To which our attention
has been called or of which We are aware
IL would be an invasion of ones natural
liberty 10 compel him 10 work for or
remain in the personal service of another
one who is placed in such restraint is in
condition of Involuntary seryitude-n
condition which the supreme court and
laws of the land declare shall net exist
anywhere within tho jurisdiction of the
United States"
The decision then went on to discuss
whether the fact that the property in.
volyed was a railway, with public duties
TO perform, gave the court the right "a
restrain the men from quitting. The re.
ceivers, the decision declares, had the
right 20 make a rev schedule of wages and
offer IL to the men, with the alternative OF
accepting IL or quitting the service. The
men had the right TO accept or refuse. and
To Quit IL they were not willing To work
for less wages. The court should have
eliminated the words "and from so Quit.
Wing the service of the said receivers, with
n without notice, as to cripple the prop
srty or prevent or hinder the operation ol
the road" "But different considerations
must control" sad Justice Harlan, ''ln
respect 70 the words in the same paragraph
OF the injunction, and from combinius
aud conspising To quit, with or without
notice, ha service OF said receivers with
the object and intent OF Gripping the prop.
erty ia their custody. or embarrassing the
operation OF the road We have said tina,
Il the employees were unwilling 10 remain
in the service for the compensation pre-.
scrihed Tor them By the revised schedule &,
would % the right of each on that account
60 withdraw from the services"
Ths decision discusses the right OF EN-.
ployes 80 strike as follows.
THE general In hibition upon combins.
lions and eonsptrscles. Termed with the
object and intent Of Gripping the property
and embarraSslng the operation OF the
road. must he construed as referring oaly
20 acts Of violence, intimidation aud
wrong. We do not interpret the words
above quoted as embracing the case Of en-
ploses who, being dissatisfied with the
proposed reduction of their wages merely
withdrew on that seco9nt sluxsy or ~
concerted action from the service OF the
receivers using neither force. threats.
persecution nor intimidation towards en-
ployes who did net JON them. noE any
device 60 modest. hinder, alarm or inter
fsrs With Others sho take. or desire 10
take their places These smployes hayin.
taken service fret with the company an
ssserw ard with the receivers under gen
eFsi contract OF employment which did
nos limit tas exercise of iheiF rlEAt %
leave the service py taclr peaceful CO.
operation, as the result Of a friendly aFEu-
nvnt. psrsaAsloa oF conferences asno
themselves, see assertion Of the r1sas o.
each and every enc 70 refuse fur
iaer service under schedule - 70
ducs3 wages woal4 ncs have eesa
isssEa. or criminal, although they may
have - acted ia the hrga belief and
expectation ghat simultaneous fQtttlu !
without notice would temporarily saeoa'
vcasencs soc receivers and sae pue.is. IL,