The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1894-04-06
would be no adequate compensation at

law.
-Itwill in extreme cases, where the
peril Is imminent and the danger great,
issue mandatory injunctions requiring
particular service to be performed or
particular order to be revoked in pre-
venting a threatened trespass upon
property or upon public rights.
Il need not enlarge upon this subject.
The jurisdiction being in question is
plenary and comprehensive"
The judge then cited several authori-
ties and continued: 1T would be anamol-
Gus indeed.if the court, holding this prop
erty in possession in trust could not pro-
tect it from injury and could not restrain
interference which would render abor-
tive all efforts to perform the public du-
ties charged upon this railway.
1T was suggested by counsel that
improper interference with this proper
ty during its possession by the court is
contempt, punishment therefor. would
furnished ample rem edy and that there
fore an injunction would not lie. This is
clearly an erroneous view. Punishment
Tor contempt is not compensation for AN
Injury. The pecuniary penalty for con-
tninacy does not go to the owner of the
property injured. Such contempt is
deemed a public wrong, and the fine
inures to the government. The inirnc-
tion goes on prevention of wrong TO
property and injury to the public well
fare; the fine, in punishm ent of con-
tumacy.''
Employees Omcers of the Court.
Turning his attention to the objections
urged to particular paragraphs of the
writ. Judge Jenkins said:
1T is contended that the restraint i'm
posed by that part of the original writ
to which objection is made by this
motion, is in derogatiOn of common right
and an unlawful restraint upon the in
dividual.
Upon the individual to work for
whomsoever he may choose, to deter
mine the conditions upon which he will
labor and to abandon such employment
whenever he may desire
sin the determination of this question,
it is needful to look to the conditions
which gave rise to the issuance of the
writ. Here was a railway some 4.4O0
miles in length, traversing some seven
states of the union, engaged in interstate
commerce, carrying the mails of the
United States.
.sThis property was within the custody
of the court, through its receivers, in
trusted cooperate it, to discharge the pub
lie debt imposed upon to keep it going
concern until the time should come to
hand it over to its rightful owners, with
all public debts discharged, and with its
franchise, rights and privileges unim-
paired.
circumstances of the Case.
ssThe receivers employed in the opera
These men are vice officers of the court
and are responsible to the court for their
conduct. The petition represented to the
court-and the facts are confessed by
threatened to suddenly quit the
service of the receivers. and to compel
by threats and force and violence other
employees, who were willing to continue
in the service, to quit their employment,
thereby causing incalculable loss to the
\
venience and hardship upon the public
'sThe restraining portion of the writ
complained and now under cOnsidera-
ton, prohibited these men from com bin
ing and conspiring to quit the service
with the object and the intent of Grip
pling the property of the company and
EN- barrassing the operation of the road
and from carrying that conspiracy into
effect.
No strike Successful Without Violence.
s.In the case under consideration the re-
ceivers sought to change the terms and
conditions of service. The employees h ad,
of course the right to decline ser
vice upon the terms proposed.
Notwithstanding the public, character
of the service upon notification
of their declination at time prior to
January 1, 1894, reasonable in view of
the service in which they were engaged,
they had the .undoubted right to aban-
don their employment upon that day.
That however, is not the case presented
to- and dealt with by the court.
Nor does the rectitude of the
writ of ! Injunction rest upon
any mere right of the employees in good
faith to abandon their employment The
restraint imposed was with refer
ence to com bining and conspiring to
abandon the service with the object and
intent of crippling the property. Its of
flee was to restrain the carrying into ef-
feet of the conspiracy"
The second branch of the motion has
reference to the writ of Injunction issued
upon the tsupplemental petition of the
receivers, restraining any combination
. or conspiracy having for its pur-
pose the Inauguration of a strike
on the lines of the railroads
operated by the receivers and from or
dering, advising approving by COM
munication, or instruction OF otherwise,
the employees of the receivers to join in
strike This part of the motion pre-
sents the issue whether a~strike is law
full The answer must largely depend
upon the proper definition of the term.
The Judge then cited the various def
nitions Of the word ssstrike,' and dwelt
upon strikes in general. He said he
knew Of no peaceful strike and that no
strike was ever heard of that was or
could be successful until accompanied
| by intimidation or violence.
JUDGE DUNDY EXCITED.
He Doesn,s Like the Position Recent De-