The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1895-06-13

is or ever will be. The denomination to
/ which belong would not unite in such
a move, though all others should"
The Right Rev. Camillus P. Macs,
bishop of Covington, Ky: THE Roman
Catholic church would, in my opinion,
and likely to the establishment of many
honest yet misinformed PrOtestants, put
absolutely nothing in the way, and that
for the very good reason that all the
essential truths of Christ's teachings,
which are accepted by all and each of
the Protestant denominations, are freely
accepted by the Roman Catholic. Should
the various Protestant churches be as
ready to accept what truths she has to
offer upon the authority of the Bible
and the church, and put aside the I'M
founded fear of any and every teaching
of the Catholic church being doubtful,
because it is taught by her, the proposed
union would not only be. possibility,
| but an actual fact. / hope
| that in Gods merciful providence the
union will some day become an accom-
phshed fact"
Prof. Fritz Hommel, University of
Munich, Munich, Germany: "As the
views about church government, Chris
stantly differ, 1T is a question whether
union of all Christian churches Tin
case it were indeed possble) would be
really an advantage. A certain super
ticialneSs and indecision would be the
result, and we need in the conflict against
the anti-Christian powers certainly, on
the contrary, not laXity, but decision of
purpose. One thing, however, would
l consider possible, as well as full of
blessing-a union of all the special
churches peculiar to the various German
States in the German empire, or to use
to you a more familiar expression, of
the United States of North America.
Each would keep through long historic
period her individual form, ceremonial
rites, customs and teachings; but in the
common belief in salvation through Jesus
Christ and in His resurrection and as
cension they would unite themselves in
one Tor severaD yearly church service
and in common works of love-"
SUPREME COURT ON STRIKES.
The labor organizations are right in
regarding the decision of the suprem
court in the DebS case as a most import
ant one in its bearings upon their inter
ests and operations. 1t sustains the Chi
cagO strike injunction, which was directed
not only against acts Of violence but also
against peaceful efforts to inaugurate a
strike. The Offense of Debs and his Off
cial associates consisted in sending GU
kilograms ordering members of the union
in various places to strike. Such a pro
ceeding is held by the court to be con
trary to law, because it calculated to cause
an obstruction of a highway of interstate
commerce; and such an obstruction is
public nuisance to be restrained like any
other nuisance. "The difference between
public nuisance and private nuisance"
the court says, sis that the one affects this
people at large and the other simply the
individual" In both cases, the quality
of the wrong is the same, we are told,
and the jurisdiction of the courts over
them rests upon the same principles and
goes to the same extent. 1T surely can
not be seriously contended," it is added,
that the court has jurisdiction to enjOin
the obstruction of a highway by one per-
son, but that its jurisdiction ceases when
the obstruction is by a hundred persons"
This decision, it will be observed, prac-
tically denies the right of labor organiza-
tons to take any step in the way of
working up strike that implies interfer-
ence with the operation of railroad.
That is to say it is held that a railroad
strike is a public nuisance, because it OBJ
structs a highway that is for the use of
tne pubic at large; ana therefore organ
lied bodies of laborers may be enjoined
from doing anything TO bring such a re-
suit to pass. 1t will be remembered that
in the Northern Pacific case Judge Jenk-
ms issued an injunction of this kind,
which was subsequently modified by the
federal circuit court of appeals so far as
it restrained the labor leaders from coun-
selling a strike, the idea being to uphold
the right of railway employees to strike
peaceably. The court of last resort now
says in effect that Judge Jenkins position
was correct, and should not have been
modified on appeal; or, in other words,
that railroad employees have no right to
strike, peaceably or otherwise, under any
provocatiOn. This is radical view of the
matter, and one that conflicts with the
general opinion upon the subject. 1t has
been supposed heretofore that labOrers
had a perfect right to strike at any time
or for any reason so long as they did not
resort TO violent means: but the supreme
court declares that so far as railroad EN- I
plOyes are concerned. this is an erroneouS
opinion, and they must find some othee
way to protect their interests and accom-
plish their purposes.-St. Louis Globe
Democrat.
-O--