The Bottineau courant. (Bottineau, Bottineau County, N.D.) 1895-1929, 1903-04-03
VICTORY ElA. IS
lNJuNc TON SECURED BY THE
#3 WABASH ROAD DISSOLVED 4.
BY JUDGE ADAMS.
CHARGES AR. NOT sUST AIMED.

CHARGES ARE NOT SUSTAINED
Firemen and Tralnmen Were Dlasatis.
fed With wages and Conditions and
the Threatened Strike Was aot By
Order 81 the ofieers-ho rlSof Of
Conspiracy to interfere vtisst INTER
81 state commeres.
st. Louis. April 3 2---In the United
States district court Judge er 3.
Adams handed down decSsi5 dis.
solving the injunctioh grantsd March
8, restraining offacials Of the fpther-
hoods Of Locomotive EireHA6n and
Railroad Trainmen and othef labor
leaders from influencing in A1l way
or ordering the men on tnef 1bash
to strike. / The temporary in3d6etion
had been granted by Judge Ada1ns on
allegations made by officials Df the
Wabash system that the defendants
were conspiring to interfere with in
terstate traffic and the transmission Of
United States mail.
In his decision Judge Adams tiEst
apalyhes the bill OF complaint pom
which the PROVISIONAL restraining or
der was issued. showing that 8the
gravamen Of the charge was that the
defendants had entered into anS IN
lawful and-malicious conspiracy tn Sc.
cure recognition of their broth arhpods
by falsely representing that theSs sen9-
ployes of. the railroad, who were n..i
bers of the brotherhood, were diEsstis-
fled with their wages aud eondi tic ils ef
tirely satisfied andgconte with the
same; that defendants were abouA to
exercise their powers as supremsA and
controlling officers CT the Brathef;
hoods of Firemen and TrainmH8 to
force an undssiled strike upon The
men, who were mem aers Of theifSor-
ganizations; that defendants lhleatt-
ened and were about to further enfpIGe
their demands to execute their pn-
spiracy by preventing the raiiTDal
flom performing duties as carrie HI |. u
intel state commerce and the mai 4 4
the Unttsl statss.
Why Injunction Was Issued
The sgist CT the conspiracy coming
within the jurisdiction Of the federal
courts: as charged in the bill, was to
precipitate a strike undesired by the
men and thereby, and by other means
specifically charged dn the bill,
Aterfere with intsrstaa STE commerce ana
the mail service of the United States,
Upon the showing made that the
! first step of the conspiracy! namely,
the ordering Of such strike, was
contemplated by the defendants and
that irreparable damage would neces-
sarily befall the railroad unless re-
straining order was forthwith issued,
the same was done for the purpose OF
holding the property and the parties
lin status quo until both sides could be
fully heard on the motion to set aside
or modify the order. Leave was given
to Ale such motion At any time
within fifteen days. The. decision then
ljustifies the issuance OF the prelim-
mary injunction "a authorized by the
statutes on the showing made by the
plaintiffs and then reviews the denials
made. by the adefendan giving COM
plete history OF the case. Continuing
the, court says: i ~
"rhe. question now Is, whether upon
all of the proof before it the court
should award q preliminary iniunc-
tion or set aside the provisional re-
straining order already made"
Wshssk Charges Not Sustained.
| The court. after fully ly,considering all
i the proofs, finds that the statements
OF the bill Of complaint to the effect
that the employees were satisfied with
their wages and conditions Of service
are not supported; that irrespective
OF the question whether the men or
the committee Of the brotherhoods rep
resenting them first suggested the in
crease of wages and change of rules,
the employees themselves, at and for a
long time prior to the filing of the
bill Of complaint, were dissatisfied
with their wages and conditions OF
service, and real difference of opin-
ion existed between the railroad and a
large majority Of It's employees, mem
bers Gf the brotherho ods,. with respect
to their wages, and that the defend
4 ants as officers and committees of the
j both by reason Of their official rela-
i direct written authority ITO represent
them in the effort to secure higher
wages and changed conditions of serv-
lice, and that the proposed strike, i'll
stead Of being officially ordered by de-
fendants, was result Of the vote Of
the employees without coercion and
directly authorizing the same.
The court further finds after a full
nxyS iv10 fi<H,S nuid that fh6