The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1894-04-11

once toward the authorship OF the injunc-
tional order. Il partly prepared the first
lnJuncton' said Mr.. Spooner' ana tne or
der was probably written by. counsel.
though / do not recollect whether / as
sisted Mr.. Miller in writing it,"
How long did Judge Jenkins hold the pc
tition under~advisement before issuing the
order?' asked Mr.. Boatner.
From Monday morning until Tuesday
morning. Mr.. Spooner then, at the re-
quest of Mr.. Terry. proceeded to tell all he
knew about the preparation and issuance
of the order. He was telegraphed for TO go
to st. Paul on the 18th of December and
there met General Manager Kendrick. He
informed him of the proposed reduction in
wage schedules, which, in the condition of
the road then, seemed necessary. Mr.. Ken
drick stated that the majority OF the en-
ployes of the road appreciated the condition
of affairs and would not object to reduced
wages. There was an element, however,
which threatened TO strike if new sc ledules
went into force, and TO destroy engines and
to damage property. Some of the men. Mr..
Kendrick said, questioned the right OF the
receivers to change the. wage schedule
Kendrick had not told the receivers Of this
state of affairs and Mr.. Spooner advised
him to do so at once. The next Mr.. Spooner
heard of the matter was a telegram 10
come to Milwaukee to meet receivers
Payne. Cakes and Rouse. Mr.. Kendrick
new schedule and the necessity for an in
junction. The new schedule Mr.. Spooner
t haa o q nand H ie ddEi cfPated pa .Pf of Sqi It and Mr. r.
Miller a part He presented the matter TO
Judge Jenkins in chambers and called his
attention to the portion which might he
open TO discussion, but which he (Spooner)
told the Judge was sustainable, and he re-
his position. He told the Judge of the
threatened trouble by the men along the
road because of the new schedule. The
judge took the matter under Amusement
and on Tuesday issued the order as prayed.
After getting at these facts the members
of the committee showed quite a disposition
TO discuss the legal merits of the decision.
but Mr.. Spooner declined. There were sew
eral interesting passages between the ex-
Senator and Chairman Boatner. The latter
asked a question about what the commit
me to give my opinion of the appointment
and the functions of this committee" said
Mr.. Spooner.
After several tits Mr.. Boatner asked for
information about the receivers Of the
Northern Pacific and how tney We're ap-
pointed. This questioning elected very lit
tie of interest. Mr.. Boatner asked If ii
were the common practice in Western
courts for judges to issue permanent in
functions ex parte in chambers. Mr..
Spooner replied that it was not the practice
was not permanent, nor was ii meant TO
be.
Mr.. Spooner was on the witness chair
for more than an hour, and proved as in
teresting a witness for the spectators as
to the committees. His explanation of the
order and what it was meant to accomplish
put a different phase upon 1t from what
the labor chiefs expressed. Mr.. Curtis,
one of the counsel for the receivers, was
the last witness called before adjournment.
His testimony was unimportant-