Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1903-04-01
adams DiSSOIQes
The Injunction
Wabash Loses IFS Case Agana BrohesRoodS Of Locomotive
FKemen and Railroad 7fanmen- Charges of Con-
pracp 10 interfere With Interstate Commerce and u.
S. c1laB MOI Sustained Las Relating 10 Employees

ST. Louis, April LIN the United
States district court today Judge Elmer
b. Adams handed down a decision dis.
solving the injunction granted March g.
restraining officials OF the Brotherhoods
Of Locomotive Firemen and Railroad
Tralnmen and other labor leaders from
interfering in any way or ordering the
men employed on the Wabash system
to strike The temporary injunction
had been granted by Judge Adams. on
allegations made by officials Of the
Wabash system that the defendants
were corspiring to interfere with inter-
state tranlc and the transmission Of
United States mails.
The decision dissolving the iniunc-
ton was rendered at 1850 a, m. to-
day
BILL ANALYZED.
In his decision Judge Adams first
analyses the bill OF complaint upon
which the provisional restraining order
was issued, showing that the grava-
PENDANTS had entered into an unlawful
and malicious conspiracy TO secure rec
ognition of their brotherhoods by false
ly representing that tho employees Of
the railroad who were members OF the
brotherhoods were dissatisfied with
their wages and conditions of service
when they We're I'm fac, entirely salts
fed and contented with the same: that
fe a fp IT.
powers as supreme and controlling OH
GERS Of the Brotherhoods Of Firemen
and Trainmen to force an undeslred
strike upon the men, who were menu
bers of their organiza ions. that de-
PENDANTS threatened and were about to
further enforce their demands to eve.
cute their conspiracy by preventing the
railroad from performing It's duties as
carrier OF interstate commerce and the
mails Of the United States by prevent
ing such connecting lines from inter-
changing traffic with and affording the
Wabash the facilities therefor required
by the interstate commerce act.
GIsT OF CONSPIRACY.
The glst of the conspiracy coming
within the jurisdiction OF the federal
NhuiANs NN Allii ItN III AUt hlllt WAS "
precipitatc strike undesired by the
men and thereby and by other means
specifically charged In the bill. 10 inter
fere with the Interstate commerce and
the mail service OF the United States.
Upon the showing that the first step
OF the conspiracy, namely, the ordering
of such strike was Immediately con-
templated by the defendants and that
irreparable damage would necessarily
befall the railroad unless a restraining
order was forthwith issued the same
was done for the purpose OF holding the
property and the parties In statu quo
Until both sides could be fully heard
on the motion TO set aside or modify
the order. Leave was given 10 file
such a motion at any time within 10
days.
RESTRAINING ORDER.
The provisional restraining order was
made without notice To the defendants.
under the stress OF the facts disclosed
by the bill ana was fully authorized
by section rs revised statutes Of the
United States and was imperatively de-
manded by the general principles Of
equity jurisprudence, recognized and
enforced In many similar cases in the
United States and England Many au-
thoritles warranting the provisional re-
straining order In question in cases OF
conspiracy TO interfere with Interstate
commerce and otherwise are cited in
support Of this last proposition.
Within the time allowed by the re-
straining order defendants duly APP
peared ana filed their sworn answered.
nying She alleged conspiracy In all its
phases and particularly denying any
purpose to interfere with interstate
commerce or the mails Of the United
states and specially denying that the
employees were satisfied with wages and
conditions of their service and deny
Ing the practice OF any and all coercion
or false representations 10 bring about
strike; ayerring that the only pur-
pose on the part OF the defendants In
consenting 90 a strike was 90 better the
condition OF their members who We're
in the employment of the railroad. by
the exercise OF their undoubted right TO
peacefully withdraw from such service
until such time as their demands OF
wages, etc.. should be conceded.
Many ahidavts and exhibits were
flied on both sides and the case has
been ably and exhaustiyely argued by
eminent counsel
THE QUESTION NOW.
The question Is now whether upon all
the proof before the court IL should
award a preliminary injunction or set
aside the provisional restraining order
already made.
The court after fully considering all
the proof finds that the statements OF
the bill Of complaint TO the effect that