The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1894-10-02
VICTORY FOR RAILWAY MEN
They Cannot Be Restrained from
Quitting Work in Body,
But They Must Not COnspire to Embar.
rass Their Employers-Gen. Harri-
son Hears the Decision Read.

strainng order of the court the clause
which aroused the country when the order
was issued, and which resulted in the
Boatner investigating committee OF Con-
gress. The intervenors representing the
leading labor organizations of the country
asked that two sections of the injunction
be eliminated. The Court of Appeals de-
cided that no court could prevent man
or a body of men from quitting individually
or in body the service of an employer.
The court said that Judge Jenkins had eX-
ceeded his powers when he enjoined the
employees of the receivers of the Northern
Pacific Railroad Company from quitting the
service of said receivers with or without
notice. so as to cripple the property or pre-
vent or hinder the operation of said rail-
road 1t held, however. that the section
should stand in which the men were pro-
hibited from combining and conspiring to
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 operation of said rail
road"
The decision was considered by the law
yers who packed the court room as one Of
the most important opinions delivered in
the United States in a decade. II defines
the status before the law Of labor organiza-
tions in their conduct of strikes, and affirms
the powers of courts of equity to interfere
by Injunction when there is reason to be-
Iieve that the law will be violated. 1t
holds that men may withdraw in body
from the service of an employer, using
however, neither force, threats nor intim-
idation toward employees who do not join
them, nor must they use any device" to
molest, hinder, alarm or interfere with 9TH
ers who desire to take their place.
GENERAL HARRISON IN COURT.
Justice Harlan, of the Supreme Court, de-
livered the opinion. Sitting with him were
Judges Woods, Bum, Grosscup and
Jenkins The last-named sat with his
eyes fixed upon Justice Harlan as the lat
ter read the opinion reviewing the circuit
judges action. Judge Jenkins appeared
undisturbed by the opinion. The audience
which listened to the reading of the opin-
ion was a most distinguished one. Ex-
President Harrison and his partner, Mr..
Elan, sat side by side, well up toward the
bench. After disposng of other cases. the
findings OF the court being merely an
nounced by Judges Woods and Jenkins.
Justice Harlan began the reading of the
opinion in the case of P. NJ. Arthur ct al,
intervenors, against Thomas f. Oakes.
Henry c. Payne and Henry c. Rouse, re-
| ceivers of the Northern Pacific Railroad
Company, as this celebrated injunction
| case is known on the docket.
The decision as a whole is clear recog-
milton Of the right Of the employees to
strike. Justice Harlan before giving the
conclusions of the court reviewed the his
| tory of the celebrated injunction. The
| ceivers Of the road In December last gave
notice of a reduction of wages all along
| the line. and when the men threatened to
| strike. Judge jenkins issued the inJunc-
| ton on Dec. 10, preventing a strike. Two
days later he amended the Injunction, max
| ing il more stringent. The Brotherhood of
| Locomotive Engineers Joined with the other
| labor unions to which the men belonged
| and appealed TO Judge Jenkins for modi-
| fication of the order Judge Jenkins re-
fused to strike out the clause enJoining
| a strike and the labor unions appealed to
| the higher court.
| THE MAIN POINT.
| The decision says that the injunction
| against employees so quitting as to cripple
| the property or prevent or hinder the oper-
| alton of the road was equivalent to a COM
| mand of the court that they should remain
| in the active employment of the receivers
| and perform the service appropriate to
| their respective positions until they could
| quit without crippling the road. The time
| when they could quit was not indicated by
| the order of the court. "Under what cir
| cumstances," SAYS the decision, may the
| employees of the receivers of right quit the
| service in which they were engaged! Much
of the argument of counsel was directed to
| this question. We shall not attempt to lay
| down any rule applicable to every case
| that may arise between employer and en-
| ploye If an employe quits without cause
| and in violation or an express contract TO
| serve for a stated time, then his quitting
| would not be of righ.. But the vital ques
! ton remains whether a court of equity will,
4 under any circumstances by Injunction,
| prevent one individual from quitting the
| personal service of another
| IAN affirmative answer to this question
is not, we think, justified by any authority
| to which our attention has been called or
| of which we are aware. 1t would be an in
| vasion of ones natural liberty TO compel
! him to work for or remain in that per-
| sonal service of another. one who is placed
! IN such restraint Is in condition of invol-
| untary servitude-a condition which the su-
| preme law of the land declares shall not
exist anywhere within the jurisdiction Of
| the United States
| The decision then discusses whether the
fact that the property involved was rail-
way, with public duties to perform
gave the court the right to restrain the
| men from quitting. The receivers, the de-
cison declares. had the right to make a
| new schedule of wages and offer 1t to the
| men with the alternative of accepting it
or quitting the service. The men bad the
right to accept ,ir or refuse and u to quit If If
| wages. The court should have eliminated
| the words "and from so quitting the serv-
| ice of said receivers, with or without notice
| as to cripple the property or prevent or
| hinder the operation OF the road"
"But different considerations must con-
| troll" said Justice Harlan, 'in respect to
| the words in the same paragraph of the in
| junction and from combining and conspirng
to quit, with or without notice, the service
| of said receivers with the object and in
tent of Gripping the, property in their GUS
tody or embarrassing the operation of the
road we have said that If employees were
unwilling TO remain In the service for the
compensation prescribed for them by the
| revised schedules ii was the right of each
one on that account TO withdraw from the
| service
RIGHT OF EMPLOYEES TO STRIKE
The decision discusses the right of en-
| pioyes 10 strike, as follows: 1.-The general
inhibition upon combinations and consplra-
| cies formed with the object and intent of
crippling the property and embarrassing
the operation of the railroad must be con-
strued as referring only to acts OF vio-
lence. intimidation and wrong. We do not
| interpret the words last above quoted as
embracing the case Of ernbloyes who. being