The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1902-10-08
COURTS AND LABOR STRIKES.

Discussion of the present strike has re-
called the fact that a local court in this city
ended a strike of street-railroad employees
by appointing a receiver for the road and
causing it to be operated until the strike
was settled. The case has been cited in
support of the suggestion that the courts
appoint a receiver for the Pennsylvania
coal mines. A little reflection will show
that the case is not in point.
The strike of the street-railroad employees
in this city began Jan. IL, 1892. After it had
continued several days 1t was temporarily
settled by a board of arbitration consisting
Of Judge Howe. Hugh II. Hanna and Bishop
Chatard. 1t was renewed on Feb. p, to the
great inconvenience Of the public, and on
Feb. % Mr.. w. p. Fishback applied to Judge
N. B. Taylor, of the Superior Court, for the
appointment Of a receiver to operate the
road. The application was based on the
ground that the interests of the company
were being jeopardized and those of the
public ignored by the existing management.
There had been a street riot n some
bloodshed, and this also was urged as a
reason for the appointment Of a receiver.
The receiver was appointed and took pos
session of the road and continued to op-
crate it until the parties came to terms.
Judge Taylor's action was generally re-
garded at the time as a new departure in
law, and 1t has never been affirmed by any
appellate court. The Journal approved the
action, but said editorially: eff justifable
at all it must be on the broad ground tina
when a franchise Is granted to a private
corporation which carries with it the duty
the latter is so far a party in interest that
any individual may go into court and show
cause why a receiver should be appointed
for the corporation" This justified the ac-
ton of the court on the ground that the
street-railroad company's franchise obli-
gated il to perform certain duties for the
public. After the strike was settled Judge
Taylor read a paper in which he placed
his action on the same ground. He said:
BY the contract between the city of Indi-
annapolis and the Citizens Street-railroad
Company the company was bound TO furnish
car service on all its lines within the city
limits each and every day, and during the
hours for business and travel of each day.
The company has broken that contract, and
IL might fairly be held that far to be in a
falling condition and unable TO perform its
obligations. The company was bound 10
furnish transportation every day. but il
failed TO do so. The company was helpless.
and the people were suffering because of its
helplessness. The parties TO this
contract are the citizens OF the city of
Indianapolis and the Citizens Street-rail-
road Company, and the justice TO be Sc
cured is the compliance with that contract
by that company wherein IL had failed
and was helpless. through it's own act or
failure TO fulfill. and the avoidance of ter
rible injury and loss so threatening and
likely to follow from sue failure.
From this 1t viii be seen that Judge Tay-
Tor based his action solely and entirely on
the express contract between the street
railroad company and the city TO render
certain specified service. There is no aIlu-
sion. nor was there at any stage of the pro-
ceedings, to the principle that a court may
appoint a receiver for the accommodation
OF the public in the absence of a contract
emitting the public to specific service. Al
though the appointment of a receiver III Ter
these circumstances did bring about an
ending OF the strike. its propriety was
questioned. The Chicago Tribune said the
general opinion OF lawyers In hat city was
that the action of the court was 'fll-ad-
] vised and unwarranted." and the Evenin.