Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1900-11-23
LABOR WINS IT'S CASE|
Judge MOI herson Dissolvss the Re.
straining Order Against TIL.
City Labor Congress
Misunderstanding Of the Facts In
tho Case Cause Of It's
Issuance.
BE Was Misled BY the Attorneys
For the Firm Involved ct
Davenport.

.--------
Des Moines, Nov. q. The restraining
order issued by Judge Mcpherson in the
Federal court against the members Of
the Tri-City Labor Congress OF Rock
Island, Davenport and Moline on No-l
svember 8, was dissolved by the court
Thursday afternoon and the case was
dismissed Inrrnediatel after debating
his opinion in the case Judge McPher-
son received from Isaac Petersburger,
of Davenport, attorney for the plaint-5
ifs. sifberstein Bros, notice OF the
plaintiffs dismissal Of the case. Not
withstanding this notice the opinion Of
the court and the dismissal Of the case
with the costs taxed up against the.
plaintiffs will be made q part Of the,
court record.
4 Judge McPherson in his opinion de-
Iclares that he issued the restraining
order under mistaken apprehension
OF the facts OF the case; that the court
has no Jurisdiction in the case. 1t is
also minated by the court in his opin-
ion that the attorney Tor the plaintiffs
acted in bad faith and abused the con-
f1dence and indulgence OF the court.
The dismissal Of the case is regarded
by union labor men as q great victory
for their cause and vindtcation OF
Judge Mcpherson, who has been un-
justly charged with unfairness to the
5unionists. The opinion in full follows:
..In this case verified bill in equity
was presented to me November 9Th
inst, asking for q restraining order as
against defendants. / directed that the
Restraining order issue upon a bond
being fled in the penalty OF $1,000. The
bond was filed and the restraining or
der issued and was served upon part OF
the defendants.
Eat the time said bill In equity was
tiff was called by the court to the fact
that the bill failed TO show that a Unit
ed States court would have jurisdi LECTION
because Of diverse citizenship. There
was no pretense that the court would
otherwise have jurisdiction. Plaintiffs
counsel promised to remedy such de-
feet and agreed without delay TO file
an amended bill setting forth the juris-
dictional facts. Upon the allegations OF
said bill in equity said verbal order,
and said promises Of plaintiffs counsel,
said restraining order was ordered and
was Issued and served.
Subsequent events, at least, chow
this to have been mistake. The order
should not have been made. This court
does not have jurisdiction in this case.
Since said order was made, an amend
ed bill has been filed, which clearly and
in proper form, recites the citizenship OF
each and all the members Of plaintiffs
firm. They are all shown to be citizens
OF Iowa.
In the original bill 1t could be in
ferred, and only inferred, that plaintiffs
were citizens of Iowa. and defendants
citizens Of Illinois. And because such
citizenship could only be inferred di-
repted that the amended bill be filed,
and one was promised by plaintiffs
counsel that would cure the defect. In
stead OF having such an amended bill,
the one now on file shows:
y. That the defendants are an associ-
alton and not a corporation.
2. That such association is composed
Of delegates from various Illinois and
Iowa labor organizations.
"Defenda nts' counsel have filed mos
ton to vacate the restraining order be-
cause of the foregoing matters and
things.
This motion could well have been
grounded upon the additional statement
that 1t does not appear that the amount
lin5controyersy is in excess Of 81. 900. The
following propositions are elementary:
j. The United States circuit court Is
q court Of limited Jurisdiction.
"2. To give the court Jurisdiction IT
must appear that the plaintiffs are all
citizensof one state, and the defendants
all citizens OF another state.
3. The amount in controversy musr
exceed, exclusive Of interest and costs,
I the sum or value Of $4,000. There are
some exceptions, but they have no APP
Iplication to this case. 1t therefore APP
pears that this court has no juri.dic-
lition
It will therefore be ordered that the
order for a restraining order, heretofore
made. be cancelled and get aside.
That the restraining writ and the
service thereof be vacated and annulled
That the order for hearing fixed for
this day fora TEN porary in junction hay-
ing been continued by counsel for ali
parties with my consent, need not be
again fixed. As the court has no juris-
Idiction the same can not be heard and
this case Will be dismissed.
The plaintiffs will pay the costs
Since making the order In conformity
with this opinion / am advised tina,
plaintiffs ask to have the case dismissed
Land this will has ord arad -