The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1898-01-11
THE SALT LAKE HERALD: TUESDAY, JANUARY II, 1898


the men to refuse to haul the cars of
complainant. There was a rule of the
brotherhood requiring the members TO
refuse 10 handle property of an offending
railroad when q strike upon such road
was ordered by the local section and con-
scented to by the grand chief The queS-
ton was, as stated by Judge Taft,
whether Arthur could be enioined from
ordering the engineers to carry out this
rule Here the reasoning of the court
does not seem to be so Dersuative. If it
IS said, the engineers may be enjoined,
Arthur certainly may be restrained from
ordering them to carry out the rule. That
his order viii be obayed, because the
penalty OF disobedience is expulsion; the
ants freights; the defendant companies
VIII probably be coarced thereby 10 refuse
complainant is freight; the Interstate
business of complainant viii be inter
rupted, the injury IS irreparable and the
remedy at law inadequate. The injunc-
ton was granted, and Arthur was com
PEELED to rescind his order already made.
The basis of the conclusion is, that the
men viii obey Arthur's orders, and viii
disobey the order of the court. That is to
say, the men are already enjoined, but
as they viii not stay enjOined If Arthur
inrarferes. Therefore, Arthur must be
enjoined from interfering.
INJUNCTION EVOLUTION.
Without stopping to discuss this judg-
ment, We may pass on, with the obserVa-
ton that it makes Il decided advance in
the progress of Injunction evolution. In
Farmers Loan and Trust company vs.
the Northern Pacific Railway company,
GO Fed. S04. these cases We're followed and
approved, but on appeal, the circuit court
OF appeals for the Seventh circuit through
Mr.. Justice Harlan, modified the rule an
ncunced so as TO decline the jurisdiction
to enjoin the quitting of SERVICES, which
to all ordinary sense means simply 10
enforce contracts for personal service.
But a still further advance was made in
n
by injunction. In "Mackall VS.. Ratch-
ford" 81 Fed. Al, an injunction had been
granted restraining the defendants from
entering upon the property OF the Mon
tana Coal and Coke company
for the purpose of interfering
with the employees Cf said company.
either by intimidation II by the holding
of either private or public assemDlages
upon said property, or in any way mo-
testing, interfering with, or illuminating
the employees of that company so as TO
induce them to abandon their work in the
mine. A company of marching strikers,
for three days in the morning and after
noon, when the employed miners We're go
ing or coming from their work, marched
and CONFERENCE.-THE along the county
road, passing the mine opening. but not
going upon the company's property. The
body of men was over 200, and in the
mOrnins before daylight it was halted
in front of the mine opening. and the
men placed in position on each side OF
the highway for at least quarter of a
mile. The court Judge GofD concluded
that the intention was TO interfere with
the operation of the mine and to intim-
iCate the miners. This conclusion seems
the more remarkable in the light of the
words of communication bestowed upon
the strikers. Except for their disrespect-
full language concerning the injunction,
we are told the demeanor of those who
marched has been most commendable.
They have INDUCED in no threats. nor has
loud. boisterous or haunting language
been used They have been sober and
decent, mindful of their own interest, and
with the exception noted, respectful of
the rights of others, and obserYant of the
requirements of the law.
Nevertheless, the court imprisoned for
the contempt, mercifully imposing light
sentences. as becometh a supreme power
impressed with the fact that the criminals
were thoroughly honest in their claims
that they had a right to march and act
as they did on the peoples highway.
From these decisions it would appear
that while a theoretical right to quit the
service and the use of a public highway
are conceded to the citizen, still the right
is reserved to the courts to in all cases
determine whether the Self-diScharge of
the employee is in good faith and whether
me use of the highway by the unemployed
is for a proper purpose. In other words,
the secret intention is to be discovered by
the court and the man held accountable.
The last case is a remarkable illustra-
ton of this. The acts Of the marching
men were all orderly and lawful. They
avoided the compliments property but
did walk in the. public road which, I'M
ran nearby the mine opening.
The court thought that a body of men
assembled together under such circum-
stances must of necessity be a menace
to the working miners Thus has the law
of injunction so progressed that its very
genesis is lost in forgetfulness. The ques-
ton is serious, and l doubt not will make
a place for Itself in the governmental
discussions of the near future