The morning call., 1894-05-05
RIGHTS OF LABOR.
Lawful to Combine and
Strike.
SEVERE ON JUDGE JENKINS.
Boatner's Special Committee
Makes Its Report.
SEVERE ON JUDGE JENKINS.
LAW LAID DOWN TO THE COURTS
There Is Need for Some Sort of
Limit to Federal Juris-
diction.

Boatner, chairman Of the special commit
tee OF the House judiciary Committee, ap-
pointed to investigate the Northern Paci-
fic decisions of Judge jenkins, to-day sub
United to the full Judiciary Committee
majority report of the special committee.
The report was discussed for two hours.
but no action was taken by the full CON-
mittee. 1t was made the special order for
the full committee next Tuesday. Repre-
sentative w. A. Stone of Pennsylvania,
the Republican member of the committee.
dissentssfrom the majority report on the
ground that it is an attempt to make a
judicial ruling. but he has not yet SUBJ
mitted min Ority report.
After reciting the weIl-known facts and
circumstances leading up to the granting
of the two orders of injunction by Judge
Jenkins. the majority report proceeded as
follows: Notwithstanding the sugges-
tion by the employees that they desired to
confer the orders were Immediately OBJ
tanned without waiting the results of a
conference or without the court being in
possession of any definite information of
the intention of the employees with respect
to the schedules upon which they solicited
conference. The original order issued
on December 10 had twofold aspect. 1t
reduced existing wages and enjolned and
prohibited those who were to receive them,
if they remained in the service of the COM
pany, from quitting the service with or
without notice so as to cripple the prop
erty or injura the operations of the road.
"On being advised that if so ordered or
advised by the officers of the organization
;ah AoIr
quit the service in a body and under the
constructions placed upon the existing
order Zone injunction) by those who had
obtained it that they would thereby COM
nit contempt of court and were liable to
punishment for so doing the officers OF the
company Immediately asked for and the
Judge granted the second order of injunc-
ton on December 23 The object of this
was to insure 10 the company the CON-
pulsory services of the operatives then in
its employ. because under the first order
Of Injunction the men could not quit with
out being guilty of contempt and would
not do so unless ordered by the officers of
their several organizations. and il these
officers were prohibited from advising the
strike it was perfectly evident that the
officers so eujlined could not discharge
this function of their offire and the men
could not quit when prohibited from so
doing by the court and not authorized to
do so by the organization by whose rules
and regulations they were governed. That
this was the object sought to be obtained,
that the order was drawn to effectuate it
and signed by the Judge with that intent,
the language of the order and the CON-
militant circumstances left no room for
doubt.
Your committee has no hesitation In
declaring that the orders rendered were
gross abuse of the powers of the court;
were supported by neither reason nor au-
thority; were beyond the Jurisdiction of
the Judge, and were therefore void. The
second or supplementary writ was more
reprehensible than the first, because the
Judge was advised before he rendered it
of the exact object aud purposes sought to
be accomplished. There was no sugges-
tion in either of these letters of any fear
of illegal acts, but the fear from suspense
of traffic, of an attending damage to the
road and inconvenience to the public were
the sole reasons for the action which the
Judge took.
'Your committee also fnds thatno meas
ures looking to a strike had been iDaagu-
rated, nor does any seem TO have been in
contemplation, nor does it appear that any
of the persons named or referred to in the
writ of injunction have remained In the
service of the company against their will.
1t does appear, however, that while they
regarded the writ as void they believed
that so long as it was in force they were
bound to obey it under the PEN
atty of punishment for contempt il they
violated it, and this consideration might
have been more effective than they were
aware of in inducing them to remain in the
service of the receiver.
Your committee does not concur in this
opinion of the Judge that the decision
rendered in the Toledo cases, page 81,
Federal Reports, Dy Judges Taft and Kicks,
support the con tention in the case under
consideration. On the contrary, both OF
the cases clearly recognize the principle
that courts OF equity cannot enforce the
specific performance of contract for per-
sonal service by writs OF Injunction and
other processes, but that in such cases the
remedy is at law by an action for dam
ages" They also clearly recognize the right
oil the labering people. as q means of SELL
ing their labor at higher prices, of coercing
employers to accede to their demands. In
detecting the lawfulness OF q proceeding
of this kind, the Judges Justly take the
law as sustaining the employe, and incop-
venience to the general public cannot be
considered.
IF employees have the lawful right to
combine in strike for the purpose of
forcing compliance with their demands or
securing the highest Of wages and best
terms possible. that right cannot be-
remedied by the fact that its exercise
levied on the Interests of others. Its prin-
ciple applies, of course. only to those
strikes which exist in the withdrawal from
service by concerted combination. Should
violence be done to the person or property
of the employer by those combined against
him; il others would supply the service
which the strikers have abandoned and
are prevented doing so by violence. iptl-
midatioD, threats or unlawful means. these
acts are not only unlawful. but In m ost in
stances would constitute violations Of the