The herald., 1894-07-22
NOT GUILTY OF CONTEMPT.
Conductor Heartt Discharged
by Judge Ross.
He Was Accused of Violating the
Courts Injunction.
The Condu ctor Refused TO Move = Train
Dnring the Strike, Bnt That's
Not Contempt OF
Court.

Aueeu W AAotc Ohutb Q Laiu uuTiuR
the strike, was purged OF contempt il
the United States circuit court yester-
day morning. Judge Ross presented 6
long opinion declaring Mr.. Hesrtt limo
cent of any attempt to interfere with
the moving OF trains or of any violation
of the Injunction ISSUED at the begin
ming Of the strike.
There were few spectators in the
courtroom 1.-the Tins, and there was
no anticipation OF the case being de-
cided. 1t cdne unexpectedly. The de-
PENDANT was not in court when he was
declared innocent. but his fellow en-
ployees soon made him acquainted with
the facts.
Mr.. Heartt did not seem surprised at
the news, as he expressed himself of
the belief all along that be would be
freed of the charges against him.
The opinion OF Judge Ross is as fol-
lows:
This is contempt proceeding
against the respondent, Heart, who is
ton issued in the equity suit in this
court, entitled Southern California Rail
way company We. Rutherford ct al, by
which the defendants to that suit,
among whom is the respondent, Heartt,
were, among other things, enjoined and
restrained from failing or refusing,
while remaining in the employment of
the complainant corporation, to perform
their regular and accustomed duties in
and about the handling and operation of
the cars and trains of the complainant's
road. During the height of the late
strike, the said complainant, Southern
California Railway company, being
desirious of sending one of its regular
passenger trains from Los Angeles to
San Diego, got the train ready and called
upon Heart, who was one of the con-
ductors in the employ of the company
on that run, and whose regular time it
was to 60, to take the train out. He
said he would put on his uniform, took
his train orders and compared his time
with that of the locomotive engineer.
who was in the cab of the engine and
ready to pull the train from the station
to San Diego. There was at the time at
the station and about the train much
excitement aud q large number of
strikers and other people, some of whom
applied to Heartt the opprobrious cpl
tibet OF ''scab," snd by other remon-
strances and actions sought to prevent
him from performing his duty to take
the train to San Diego. Thereupon
Heartt, according to his testimony, in
formed the company's train dispatcher
that he resigned his position and re-
fused to take the train out, while ths
train diepstcher's testimony is, in effect,
that Heart said 81 refuse to take the
train out and resign my position"
Heart was the chairman OF the local or
ganization of the American Railway
union, and it is contended on the part Of
the prosecution that his action
in the matter was scheme
devised by him to prevent
the company from running its train. II
that be true there cannot be the slight
est doubt of his guilt of the contempt
charged; for it is entirely true that in
junction orders must be fairly and hon.
estly obeyed and not defeated by sub.
bound to obey them. They may be vio-
lated by aiding, countenancing and
abstting others in violation thereof, as
we'll Is doing it directly and courts do
not look with indulgence upon schemes,
however skillfully devised: designed to
thwart their orders" People VS.. Pendle-
ton. "a N. Y, 624; Morton Va. Superior
Court, CD CAL, 497. But careful con.
siderntion of the evidence in the case
convinces me that when the respondent
Heartt accepted the call made upon him
by the superintendent OF the company.
and consented to take the train to San
Diego, he did 30 in good faith, and that
all OF his preparatory steps were like
wise taken in good faith and with the
full intention of taking the train to
San Diego as he had consented to do.
But he finally found the reproaches and
circumstances of his late fellow.work-
men and their sympathizers too much
for him to bear. and he thereupon de-
termined to give up his job. l do not
attach any consequence to the circum.
stance whether he first said, II resign
my position and refuse to take the train
OUT or II refuse to take the train out
and resign my position" Both state
ments were made practically at the same
instant and constituted one declaration
and one act. 1t is to be remembered
that the question here is not that OF the
guilt of those men who unlawfully in
terfered with Hesrtt remaining in the
employment OF the company and per-
forming his accustomed duties, but the
question is whether Heart, in acting as
he did, violated the injunction issued by
the court and served on him, enjojning
upon him the performance of his accue.
toned duties in the handling and opera
ton OF the company's cars and trains 30
long az he remained in its employment.
Gas already said, if / believed the
truth to be that the acts of the respon-
dent in preparing to take the train to
San Diego were in bad faith, and but
trick to hinder and impede the opera
lions of the company. there would not
be on the part of the court the least hes
itancy in adjudging him guilty, and in
imposing therefor heavy punishment.
But believing, as do, from the evidence
that the services in question performed
by respondent up to the time Of quitting
his employment, were honestly per-
formed. and with the bona fide inten-
ton of taking the train to San Diego,
am unable to see that he violated the
injunction, which did not enjoin him
from leaving the service Of the company
at any time.
1.-THE present proceeding must accord
ingly be dismissed, and it is go ordered. I"