The Connecticut labor news., 1922-03-03

The injunctions issued by Judges Kicks and Taft, as described last week, were applied to members of the Railway Brotherhoods, for, at this period (18o2), there were extensive strikes on a number of the railroads On August IS, 1893, Judge Jen- kins of the United States Circuit Court for the Eastern District Of Wisconsin appointed three receivers for the Northern Pacific Railroad Company Two days later the re- ceivers ordered a reduction ot sal aries of all employees.
 On October 28 the same re-
 ceivers abolished all existing
 schedules covering rates ot
 wages to employees. These or
 ders created great dlssat1stac-
 ton, and becoming alarmed, the <~. receivers, on December IS, ap- oiled to the federal court tor authority to enforce reduction in wases, and at the same time for an injunction restraining and prohibiting them from com bining and >conspiring to quit with or without notice"
 On the following day (December 1o), Judge Jenkins granted an ex parte hearing to the receiVers G 'a torneys, and, complying with thelr re- quest. issued an ininnction restrain ing the employees from, striking; m other words, binding theEn to the1r jobs by an equity decree as effective ly as the serfs had formerly been attached to the soil through the power which the nobles had acquireG Finding that an equity court was at their service, and not satisfied with what they had already secured, an application was made, three days later, for an injunction which would restrain the representatives and mem bers of the brotherhoods from fed erating or cooperating for the pur- pose of conferring with the receivers. Judge Jenkins action aroused the intense indignation of al lthose who believed that the United States Gov ernment was government by law, instead of government by man. Congressman McGann introduced a resolution in the House calling for an investigation of Judge Jenkins action. The resolution,- with some amendments, was adopted by the House, and later on, the committee submitted a report to the House which read in part:
 "The power to punish for con tempt is limited by the laws of most of the states and we can see no reason why a like limita- ton should not be placed upon the powers of Federal judges.
 Your committee, therefore, recommends the adoption of the following resolution:
 Resolved, that the action of Judge James c. Jenkins in issuing said order of December 1o, 1893, being an order and writ of injunction at the instance of the receivers of the Northern Pacific Railroad Company di- rected against the employees of said railroad company and' in effect, forbidding the employees of said Northern Pacific Railroad Company frim quitting its serv- ice under the limitations therein stated, and in issuing a similar order of December 22, 1893, in effect forbidding the officers of labor organizations, with which said employees were affiliated, from exercising the lawful func
 tions of their office and position was an oppressive exercise of the
 process of his court, an abuse of
 judicial power, and a wrongful
 restraint upon said employees and
 the officers of said labor organ
 izations; that said orders have
 no sanction in legal precedent,
 American citizens and contrary
 to the genius and freedom of
 American institutions; and,
 therefore deserving of the con-
 demnation of the representatives
 of the American people.
 The Railway Brotherhoods carried the case to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals, and, on October I, 1894, Judge Harlan, Justice of the Supreme Court, decided that:
 Equity will not enjoin em-
 ployes of the railroad from quit
 ting service. Employees of rail
 road may lawfully confer to-
 gether upon the subject of pro
 posed reduction in wa@es and
 may withdraw in a body from
 such service because of such re-
 duction. @8.
 "A strike is not unlawful if it
 is merely a combination among
 employees having for its object
 their orderly withdrawal in large
 numbers or in a body from their
 employers service to accomplish
 some lawful purpose,
 If two equal rights conflict 1t
 does not, and cannot rest with
 any court to declare rest with
 any court to declare which ot
 these shall give way. No court
 can subordinate the right ot
 labor to the right of the em-
 ployer Nor can any court de-
 clare that capital shall abate any
 of its rights because of collision
 with the rights of labor.
 "It is not logical to say, that
 a railroad is a public highway
 and owes a duty to the public,
 and that it must be kept a going
 concern although it prove un-
 remunerative to the share-ho1d-
 CTS and at the same time shift