The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1895-01-25

G2sz1x 70 pEeF6Ut 8&f1A 1FG<a 0Ez4& zSS4s1-
The c,asxs of violence amounting 10 q
prevention is not legally made out. In
saances OF violence. generally by others
than she former sEupioyes Of tho cum-
pany, b shown. but 4 b also shown that
not only Tire police force of the city, but
over 5.o00 soldiers are preserving order,
and cannot believe that this company is
not protected Ia It's rights. nor do I
think any qnestian OF fact is fairly raised
ON that head Beside. the persistence Of
the company in refusing 70 run its cars
except as It may gradually get employees
10 accept IT'S terms. Is In itself usslaw-
ful. as have shown. and must necessari-
". by It's bad example. tend 10 public dis
quiet. II not to some disorder.
In respect OF the question of hours and
wages between the company and its en-
pioyes. It's dirty was 20 have gone on with
IT'S fun complement OF employees, having
the right grstuaiiy and from day TO day,
TO superssde its employees. If it can, by
new employees who will work on its
terms. or TO supersede them all at once
when II had obtained sufficient number
OF employees for that purpose. But in
such controversy II has not the right
to stop It's cars while Il is thus gradually
getting other men. IL the people OF the
state were running this road they would
not thus incommode and damage them
selves, asd it must not be forgotten that
this corporation IS entrusted with the
running of these raads as the servant OF
the people of the state.
1T therefore remains for me TO deter
mine the form of The writ, whether Ii
shall be peremptory or alternate In one
aspect Of the case. there seems 10 be an
Issue of fact presented. and n such an
issue be presented the law dos not per-
nit me to decide IL and allow a peremp-
tory writ. but reauirns me to allow an
alternative writ, wafch has the effect OF
reservins the Issue Of fact. to .Ae tried
by a jury or BY TIE court. If 50 agreed
upon.
pany AYERS that asreason why its en-
pioyes drouid not continue working for
II. was that 1t refused 10 run it's cars as
requested by said employees. In respect to
the frequency with which cars could be
run. and the number of cars
TO be run. Tho number of cars
or trains which railroad shall run is
left TO tire discretion of IT'S directors, sub
jecst to review by the court upon an appli-
cation or writ OF mandamus to make
them rtxl more II the public convenience
requires It, Its employees may not assume
to Determine the number of cars 30 be
run. II. however. this allegation in the
answer refers to the controversy in re-
spect of what are called .trippers.' then
1t has no force. for the controversy Is In
its cs5eiiee one IN respect of hours and
wages. / concur in what Justice cullom,
in the other case. IN that respect says.
namely That I do not regard the alleged
attempt TO abolish trippers as interfering
with the running or management OF the
road, because l imagine the company
would BIZ allowed 10 run as many trippers
as 1t chooses. II II wouId only pay the
men s. a day for running the trips In
that case i imagine there would be DO
trouble. so there Is really a question OF
wages at issue. Each party has the right
TO obtain the best terms it can, and. as
was said in the freight handlers case. il
the company cannot get men at a price
II thinks fair, it is hosus to set them at
prtR It may deem exQrbitant because
its duty Is TO run its roads Such was
the disposition of that point by the learn
ed justice The counsel for each side will
be heard at 10 O'Clock on January g. as
10 which form of writ shall be issued"