The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1900-06-26
INJUNCTION is GRANTED.
Federal Judge Issues a Restraining
Order Against st. Louis street
Railway Employees.


ST. LOUIS, Mo. June 25.-Judge Elmer
B. Adams, of the United states district
court, today granted temporary lnJ s n,,
ton in the case of w. D. Mahon and all
the members Of division No. lsl Of the
Amalgamated Association of street Raii-
way Employees of America. restraining
them from interfering In any way WIN
the running of mail CARS over the Hnes
of the st. Louis Transit Company. None
of the defendants was present. Iney
were represented by W. 8. Anthony. This
afternoon the transit company and the
union men seemed satisfied with the sit
uation. A NJ. Morrison, OF the grievance
committee. says:
Our hope lies in the boycott. and y
the friends OF organized labor will stand
by us, we will win in the end or some
thing VII burst"
on the other hand. the company claims
that, as the danger from violence de-
creases, the cars have more passengers
and that as soon as all fear ia remover,
the normal trafflc will resume.
About 900 members or the sherifs posse
comitatus were furloughed today under
orders from the board OF police commits
sioners A force of 500 deputies will be
retained for guard duty at the various
car sheds and power houses.
The inquest that Is trying to establish
the responsibility for the. death, of Thorn
as Rine and Burckhardt, strikers. who
We're shot and killed in front of the posse
barracks, on June TO- was concluded to-
day. and the jury retired to consider the
testimony. After being out several hours
the jury returned three verdicts. The
is that he came 70 his death by gun
shot wound inflicted by member of tlss
posse, which was at the time acting IN
the discharge of its duty. The verdict In
Burckhardt liz that they came to their
deaths at the hands of parties unknown,
and that the shooting was not 1ustiricd.
Gardner Mcknight and George Cox, dep
uties, are exonerated from all blame.
In summing up the contents of the, aft,
davits presented. Mr.. Anthony declared
IA xx-ag mt an ~ h,a
PENDANTS named had been guilty of law
lessness.
ION the contrary" he added, "the
strike leaders and ali the members of the
street railway mems union have coun-
seled law and order. The transit COM
Is not bb for the
Is the union men who have been made
to sffer and bear the brunt of all dis
turbances. The president OF the union:
as the result Of being stabbed by an as
sassin."
At the conclusion of the arguments
Judge Adams rendered his decision sub
stantiaily as follows:
1T is conceded by the defendants that
this court has jurisdiction over the ques-
ton at issue. In the case of the United
States against Debs. 1t was held that
where 1t was shown there was unlawful
Interference with the mails or interstate
chancery could be invoked. The author
ity of the government is binding upon all
people No distinction is made for the
young or the old. the rich or the poor
The question here is whether the defend
ants have been shown by the affidavits
to have been interfering with the instru-
mentalities and the agencies or the fed
eral government. The court in passing
decision, does not undertake to punish II
the affirmative position is sustained The
injunction process is intended as deter
rent, a preventive OF lawlessness, and
Is a declaration aud warning to all the
people. The issue as set forth here Is
not one between the Transit Company and
the members of the street car union. but
of the United States against the strikers
and all persons who may interfere with
of whether this or that person has been
guilty of the act Of lawlessness. a reason
able apprehension as to violation of the
laws of the United States Is practically ali
that IL necessary TO determine the isSu-
ance of an injunction.
Soon after the present strike was In
augurated. there were scenes Of lawless-
ness throughout the city. 1t is admitted
that the mall cars have been interfered
impossible. The defendants. ard those
who have acted in concert with them.
ordered the strike. From this II follows
that whether they are guilty OF the
awlessness or not. as complained Of
they must be held accountable for the
necessary consequences OF their acts.
IF II is true. and I hope II is. that
none OF the officials has been guilty Of
interfering with the mail cars. then the
injunction can certainly do no harm
However, my ruling is not based upon
that conclusion. The motion for n tenn
porary injunction is accordingly grant
ed