The Jasper weekly courier. [volume] (Jasper, Ind.) 1858-1922, 1894-05-11

Report Of the Majority Of the hosse
Committee.

SOmWuvJee.
Representative Boatner, of Louis
lana, chairman Of the special com
mittee of the judiciary committee O
the house Of representatives, ap
pointed to investigate the Northern
Pacific decisions of Judge Jenkins
submitted in behalf Of the majority
of the investigating committee a re-
port to the full judiciary committee
Representative w. Stone, Of Penn
sylvania, the republican member o.
the subcommittee, dissents from
the majority report on the ground
that it is an attempt to make iu'
dicial ruling, but he has not as yet
submitted a minority report.
THE COMMITTEES REPORT.
The original order rendered on
the 10Th Of December had two
fold aspect. 1t reduced existing
wages, and enjoined and prohibited
those who were to receive them, il
they remained in the service OF the
company, from quitting the service,
with or without notice, so as to Grip
pie the property or injure the oper-
ations Of the road. On being ad-
vised that if so ordered or advised
by the officers Of the organizations
to which they belonged the men
would quit the service in a body,
and that under the construction
placed upon the existing order the
injunction] by those who had OBJ
tanned it, they would thereby COM
nit a contempt Of court and were
liable to punishment for SO doing,
the officers of the company imme-
diately asked for and the judge
granted the second order Of in
junction on the 23d Of December.
The object Of this was to insure
the company the compulsory SER
vices of the operatives then in its
employ, because if under the first
order Of Injunction, the men could
not quit without being guilty Of con-
tempt, and would not do so unless
ordered by the officers Of their sew
eral organizations, and If these Of
ficers were prohibited from order
ing, directing or advising the strike,
it was perfectly evident that the Of
ficers so enjoined could not dis
charge this function Of their Office,
and the men could not quit when
prohibited from doing SO by the
court, and could not be authorized
to do so by the organizations by
whose rules and regulations they
were governed. This was the object
sought to be obtained; that the or
der was drawn to effectuate it, and
it was signed by the Judge with that
intent, the language Of the order
and concomitant circumstances left
no room for doubt.
Your committee has no hesitation
in declaring that the orders rendered
were gross abuse Of the power Of
the court; were supported by neither
reason nor authority; were beyond
the jurisdiction Of the Judge, and
were, therefore, void. The second
supplementary writ was more rep
rehensible than the first, because
the Judge was advised before he
rendered it Of the exact objects and
purposes sought to be accomplished.
There was no suggestion in either
Of these briefs Of any fear from H.
legal acts, but the certainty Of a
suspension Of traffic, Of an attend
ing damage to the road and incon-
venience to the public, were the sole
reasons urged for the action which
the Judge took.
Your committee also finds that
no measures looking to strike had
been inaugurated, nor does any
seem to have been in contempla-
ton; nor does it appear that any Of
the persons named or referred to in
the writs Of injunction have re-
mained in the service Of the COM
pany against their will. 1t does ap-
pear, however, that while they re-
garded the writs void they believed
that as long as it was in force they
were bound to obey it, under pen
atty Of punishment for contempt il
they violated it, and this considera-
ton might have been more effective
than they were aware Of in inducing
them to remain in the service Of the
raccivers