The Helena independent., 1894-10-02
THE LAW AS TO STRIKES.
II Is Declared With Emphasis by
Jusiics Harlan, Of tho Su-
preme Court
Strikes Are Not Necessarily Ille-
gal, as Judge Jenkins Held
They We're.
Jenkins Celebrated Northern Pacific Ia.
junction Modinsd by the Justice As
Asked by the Msa.

CHICAGO. Oct LIN the United States
oourt OF appeals to-dAy, JusIios Harlan, OF
the Unitod States supreme court, severely
handled the famous strike injunction Of
Judge jenkins. Harlan held that q body
of mon had the right to qui,, Irrespective
OF the discomfort which might result.
They had. however. no right TO oonspirs W
do damage or emba'aas. Ht did not Agfss
with Jsnkins' famous dsfnitIon OF q atriks,
that II was necessarily Illegal" Justice
Harlan held that there was such thing nc
a legal strike. and Judge Jsnhins' iniune-
tion was modified. The opinion Was rem
dersd By Justice Harlan and Judges Wood
and Bsnn. The bench was occupied by
Justice Harlan and judges Woods, Bum,
jenkins and qrosaoup. jenkins appeared
undis,urbed by the decision.
Tha, part Of Jenkins injunction. which
restrained employees Of the road from strik.
ing. or In the language Of the injunction.
from so quitting the ssrvlos Of said 70.
ceivsr. With OF without notice. a. TO oip.
pie The property or prevent or hinder the
operation Of ths road" the court Of appeals
declares Was Q violation Of the rights Of
employees. who oould not legally be re-
strained from leaving the employ OF the
receiver and the company when they saw
ft 10 do so. whether they qai. In q body or
Individually. That par, Of the Injunction
which restrained smployss from entering
into combination or conspiracy 10 qlit
with the intention Of crippling property
and preventing tho operation Of the read,
is sustained. Ga the whole The decision 10
a clear recognition Of the right Of en- ployss
70 strike.
Justice Harlem. before giving the conelu-
sionn of the court, reviewed the history of
the celebrated Injunction. The receivers
Of the road, iu December last, gave notice
Of q reduction Of wages all along the line,
when the men threatened 10 strike. Judge
Jenkins issued an injunction preventing q
strike. Two days later he amended the In
junction. making 10 more stringent. The
Brotherhood Of Locomotive Engineers
joined with ether labor organizations 10
which the men belonged and applied to
Judge jenkins for a mobilization of the
order. The judge refused 10 strike out the
clause onjoininR q strike, and tho labor
unions appealed 70 higher eoart. tho
decision says that the injunction against
erty or prevent or hinder the operation OF
the road, was equivalent 10 q command By
the couit that thsy shouid remain in ths
active employ msnt OF the receivers and
perform the service appropriate 10 their
respective positions until they could quit
without erippling the road. The time
whom they could quit was not Indicated BY
the order OF tbe ooutt.
Under what circumstances" saya the
decision, may the employees of the roceiv-
ora have the right TO qnit the service In
which they we're engalsd2 The vital ques-
tioR remains whether q court OF equity will,
under any circumstances, by iniun ction,
prevent one Individual from quitting the
personal service of another. An atfirma-
tive answer to this question IL not We think,
justified by hnT authority to which our at
tention has been sailed or of whioh vo arc
aware. Ii would be an invAaton Of once
natural liberty 10 compel him 10 work for.
or remain in the PERSONAL seryios OF. an.
other. One who is placed in suoh restraint
ia In a condition of involuntary ssrvituds,
a condition which thu supreme laws of the
country declare shall n9t exist anywhere
within tho Jurisdiction of the United
States"
The decision then went on 10 discuss the
fact whsther tho property involved being a
railway With public duties 10 perform. gave
tho court the right 10 restrain men from
quitting. The receivers. ths decision de-
olarSs, had light 10 mako a new schedule
OF wages and Offer ID 20 the men, with the
alternative Of accepting or quitting the SER
vice. The men hat q right TO accept or re-
fuss, and 10 quilt II they were not willing TO
work for less wages. The court should
have eliminated this words, and from
so quitting the ssryios OF the said receivers
with or without notice, ss to cripple the
provertJ or hinder tho operation OF ths
road"
I've have said that IL the employees were
unwilling to remain In the service for the
com pensation prescribed for thom by the
revised schedule. II was tho right Of each
one. on that account, TO Withdraw from the
service"
The decision discussed the righ, OF en-
ployes TO strike as follows: The general
Inhibition upon combinations aud con-
asiraeies formed with tho object aud iutont
OF cri plinp property and embai inssina tho
operations OF railroad, must be eonst ued
NJ referring only to acts OF Violence in
tlmidatlon aud wong. We do not 10 ter
% el the words 40 above Quoted a. embrAo.
ing the case OF em ployss who. being dissat-
ishod with = proposed reduction Of their
wages. merely withdrew on that account,
singly OF bI concerted action. from The ssr.
vice of the Tscsiysis. using neither 70 os,
threats, persecution nor latimidniion To-
ward employer who do moi isin
them, mo- any device 20 moiesL
hinder. alarm or interfere with others who
take or desire 10 take their places To Ts-
fuse further service under n schedule Of ro-
duced wages would not have been illegal o.
criminal, although they mnY have 60 acted
In tho htm bs!isf and expectation that
simultaneous quitting without notice woud
temporarily Inconvenience the receivers
and public"
The opinion concluded by holding that
the oct Of conRrsrs, July 2, 1890 known As
tho iuteTatats commstos act has no bear
Inc on tue question before the court. The
order of Judge Jenkins Ia ievsrsed ia pau
aud the oausa ia rsmauded with directions
to sustain the notion 10 strike Out 10 tho
extent indicated ia the o sluion,