The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1903-03-05

THE LATEST INJUNCTION.
The restraining order issued by tine United
States Circuit Court at ST. Louis in the suit
of the Wabash Railroad Company against
the officers of certain labor unions is a new
departure and distinct advance over any
injunction heretofore issued. 1t is new
departure In that 1t Is the first time that
the interstate-commerce law has been in
voked against railroad employees to prevent
strikes. That law. passed in 1857. was d.
rected against the railroad companies. 1t
was intended to put stop to certain prac-
tees, such as discriminating rates, pooling.
etc. In order to bring the railroads under
the jurisdiction of the federal courts and
enable them to enforce the law, all rail-
clared to be common carriers and were re-
quired to perform certain duties in the way
of receiving. transporting and delivering
freight. Severe penalties were imposed for
refusing or failing to perform these duties
The law makes no reference whatever to
railway employees or to strikes or to inter-
ference with the railroads in the perform
ance of the duties imposed on them.
1t Is notorious that for years past the rail-
roads have secretly evaded or openly vio-
lated some Of the leading provisions of the
law, and the Interstate-commerce Commits
to it. This is the first time that it has been
invoked for the protection of an interstate
railway against a contemplated strike by
it's employees, and 1T has been measurably
successful. Other injunctions Nave been is
sued under the common law prohibiting
dalton or coercion to prevent other per-
sons from working and from picketing, etc.
but this order goes further in that 1t forbids
the officers OF labor unions from ordering a
strike which they claim the men themselves
had authorized. The order recites that,
whereas 1t was represented that the defend
ants 'are combining and confederating to-
gether to order and cause a strike on the
part of the employees of said railroad COM
pany, etc." therefore the court orders each
and every one of said labor leaders "abso-
lutely to desist and refrain from in any
way or manner ordering. coercing. persuad-
ing. inducing or otherwise causing, directly
or indirectly. the employees of the said the
Wabash Railway Company, engaged in or
about the operation of its trains within the
United States as brakemen, switchmen or
locomotive firemen, to strike or quit the
service of said company" In other words,
the court enjoins them from ordering q
strike.
The first impression of most persons will
probably be that the order prohibits the
men from striking. but this is mistake.
No court would undertake to say that any
man or any number of men may not quit
work at their individual pleasure. This is
an indefeasible right The order simply
forbids the officers of certain labor organi-
cations from doing acts which in them
selves would be evidence of a conspiracy to
prevent the railroad company from dis
charging its duty to the public as a COM
mon carrier. An order prohibiting the ex-
ecution of an organized conspiracy to de-
stroy or interfere with the business of a
railroad is very different from an order
forbidding an individual from exercising a
personal right. Chief Arthur. of the Broth
erhood of Locomotive Engineers. had a
glimmering Of this distinction when he said
The injunction as issued is one of the
most sweeping 4 have ever known. 1t seems
to me that the privilege of the employees to
even stop work has been taken away from
them. unless they want to lay themselves
liable to contempt of court. A strike does
not necessarily have to be ordered by the
officials mentioned in the Injunction but
the men. knowing the situation, can walk
out of their own responsibility. OF course
| the committeeman and leaders could moi
| give their consent to such a movement
| without being liable in court, but that does
! not hinder the employees from quitting their
| work.
| Mr.. Arthur is right. Every one of the
men can quit work at an appointed day and
hour IL they choose to do so. The order OF
the court is against combined, not agains,
individual action. But while this distinc-
goes further than any other that has beer
issued In this country and even furthe,
than the recent decision OF the English
| courts in the Tan Vale Railway case IL
| that case the English courts held thai
striking employees were pecuniarily liabl,
for damages done railroad by intimidation
| OF its employees and otherwise interfering
with its business. This order prohibits
contemplated strike The English cour
prohibits the use OF forcible means TO max,
strike effective. while this order makes
strike through the machinery of organized
labor unlawful in itself
II win be seen that the order rests mainl.
! on the theory that conspiracy to injure tn