People's Pilot, Volume 3, Number 38, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 9 March 1894 — WOULD END STRIKES. [ARTICLE]

WOULD END STRIKES.

Lawyers Say That Would Be the Effect of Judge Jenkins' Rule. Effort to S«care a Modification of Kin Northern Pacific Order—lts Continuance Would Place Labor in an Attitude of Slaver/. IMPORTANT LEGAL FIGHT. Milwaukee, March 5. —Capital and labor met face to face in Judge Jenkins’ court here Friday and began what promises to be a battle over a principle that is of national importance. It was a bold stand that capital, repreented by the attorneys of the Northern Pacific railroad, took —the position that a judge could by writ compel men to refrain from quitting the service of an employer. In opposition to this the attorney for the United Organization of Railway Employes took the ground that it was the right of every man to quit the service of any other man, to work when he pleased and to rest when he pleased. Involved between these two widely divergent lines was the question of the right of labor to organize, to act in unison or to in any way combine to advance its interests. The arguments Friday were upon the petition to Judge Jenkins to have him modify his famous strikb order wherein he enjoined the employes of the Northern Pacific railway from quitting the service of the road, and to combat this the receivers were represented by a full array of counsel, 'with ex-United States Senator John C. Spooner at their head. The labor organizations were also well prepared for the struggle, having Attorney T. W. Harper, of Terre Haute, Ind., and Quarles, Spence & Quarles, of this city. The courtroom was crowded all day. f Simply Wanted Better Wages. Attorney Harper began the arguments for the plaintiff. He discussed the original and supplemental petitions of the North Pacific receivers, which averred that the Northern Pacific employes were all members of the eight great railroad organizations and asked for an injunction restraining the chiefs of these orders from advising or ordering the men to strike, without which order or advice they wou.d not strike. He went on to say that there was not a single allegation that if every man on the road quit work others could not be found to take their places. The petition did not aver that the men would quit for the purpose of crippling the road; it simply alleged that if they did quit it would cripple the road. The crippling of the road was an incident to, not the end of, their quitting. The end was simply to get higher wages elsewhere. Mr. Harper said that the men had the right to sell their services to the highest bidder.

•lodge Interrupt* the Attorney. “Who disputes that?” interrupted Judge Jenkins, somewhat petulantly. “This order, as I understand it,” retorted Mr. Harper, somewhat savagely. If it does not then I am about through. It not only enjoins them from quitting to receive higher wages elsewhere; it enjoins them from even talking about quitting.” The attorney followed in this vein, and said the liberties of the people must be carefully guarded and the men had a perfect right to work when they pleased and loaf when they pleased. After some further talk Mr. Harper was suddenly interrupted by the court 'demanding what a strik* was, anyway, -And there was a lively spat between the judge and the lawyer. “Before I get through,” roared the Sawyer, “1 will show you a special act of congress giving the men the very rights you have enjoined them from exercising.” The judge seemed disposed to argue with the attorney, and said that one cause of the misunderstanding between the parties in the case was a misapprehension of what astrike really was.

Mr. Harper read the act of congress providing for the establishment of national labor unions, which declared that the men had the right to combine to regulate wages, reduce the hours of labor or improve their condition in any manner. What thty could not do was to institute a boycott or keep other men from working, and the men did not ask to have those restrictions removed. He stated to the court that the chiefs who had been restrained could not order a strike. All they could do was to consent to a strike after two-thirds of the men on a road had voted to strike, and it was their special duty to see that two-thirds of the men had voted to strike before they gave their consent. Calls it Involuntary Servitude. He then referred to the amendment to the constitution, which declares that there shall not be slavery nor involuntary servitude in the United States except as punishment for crime. Here there had been no crime, and if there had been the men should have been tried and convicted before they were compelled to work. It was a clear case of involuntary servitude. The men were not working because they wanted to or out of love for the receivers, but under the mandate of the court Blr. Quarles’ Argument. Charles Quarles, of this city, followed Jlr. Harper, He had not got fairly started before Judge Jenkins interrupted with the remark: “Will you please point out the clause which prohibits the chiefs from conferring with the men. Mr. Quarles read the clause in reference to ordering or advising a strike. “YV'bat is a strike?” asked the court sharply. 4 *-t is & cessation of work by a concerted action for the purpose of securing an advantage to the party ceasing work,” replied the lawyer. Mr. Quarles continued on the line that the men had a perfect right to comb»#e and to quit work if necessary. He bad not got very far when the court into mipted him with the question: “But h-ofc here, Mr. Quarles, is it not a fact t. it they simply qmt to enforce their 4kx-»idr’

“Yes, it may be, and what the court wants to know evidently is whether they have the right to use this lever. As I said before, 1 claim they have the right to use the lever of inconvenience to the receivers. But your injunction forbids them to quit under any circumstances. “They can quit to-morrow and go to Texas if they will,” retorted the judge, a little excitedly. “But they don’t want to do that. Their officers may advise them, too.” “But, your honor, they can’t go unless each man puts as good a man in his place as he is himself, because your injunction forbids sthem from in any manner embarrassing the receivers in the operation of the road If the object of the strike is to gain an advantage it is legal; if the object is to do injury, it is malicious. In either case no injunction is necessary, as the law punishes malicious trespass. Definition of a Strike. At the opening of the afternoon session Attorney Quarles read a definition of a strike furnished by Grand Chie'Clarke, of the order of Railway Conductors. It was as follows: “A strike is a concerted cessation of or refusal to work until or unless certain conditions which obtain or are incident to the terms of employment are changed. Tho employe declines to longer work, knowing full well that the employer may immediately employ another to fill his place, also knowing that ho may and may not he reemployed or returned to service. The employer has the option of acceding to tho demand and returning the old employes to service, of employing new men or of forcing conditions under which tho old men are glad to return to service under the old conditions.” Following this up Mr. Quarles said that a strike was merely a combination to secure better wages or to protest against any unjust reduction. In this case the Northern Pacific employes had done no unlawful act and the only , thing they were suspected of being about to do when the injunction was issued was to get the highest wages ! possible, a perfectly lawful proceeding, I provided they did not violate any law. ‘ Miiy lie Strikes Without Violence. I

At this point Judge Jenkins inter* rupted to ask if a strike could be made effective without the use of violence or intimidation. Mr. Quarles thought it could and called attention to the fact that all the men were charged with was that they intended to quit; not that they contemplated any violence or * intimidation. After saying that because some strikes were attended with violence all the strikes could not be declared illegal, the attorney went on to say that the court could not abridge the right of any citizen, no -'matter how much it might inconvenience a corporation or any person in particular. It was not right for a court to impose restrictions upon any certain class, and to deprive labor of the right to combine was to take away its only weapon and its only shield. The Other Side. Col. John 11. McNaught opened tho argument for the receivers. He began by making the broad statement that the object of the writ issued by tho court was not intended to limit the right of the employes to quit He added that he knew the writ did not prevent the men from quitting at any time they might choose, because he had asked the court to include that clause and the court had refused. If the order to strike had been issued, said the attorney, great damage would have been done. People along the line of the Northern Pacific would have suffered for the necessities of life by the road being compelled to stop running trains. As it was, the turbulent element was held in check. Mr. McNaught went on to read the clause in the by-laws of one of the labor unions, wherein it was specified that any man refusing to obey an order of the union leaders would be expelled. Attorney Harper interrupted to say that this did not apply to strikes but to orders relative to a settlement. Can Prevent Meu from Quitting. Changing his course a little Mr. McNaught argued that the court did have the power to prevent the men quitting, as the road was being operated under his orders.

“The court,” shouted the lawyer, has the same power over these men that he has over his clerk.” “The clerk could quit,” said Mr. Harper. “Not if his action in so doing would embarras the court.” “Humph,” ejaculated Harper, “the receivers could quit.” “And throw this great estate into the street,” shouted McNaught “Ruin this great business involving millions of dollars.” “Yes, they can quit any time they see fit The law can compel no man to serve in a position against his wilL” Called Harper an Anarchist. Here occurred the most dramatic incident of the day. Attorney McNaught suddenly wheeled and facing Attorney Harper he exclaimed in a voice so shrill that it was almost a shriek: “That is anarchy; that is communism. I thought you were a lawyer, pardon me for saying it” Harper is a man of massive proportions, and he did not move a muscle of his face, but, rising, said: “I repeat that the receivers can quit whenever they see fit. The law can compel no man to serve in a position against his will, and if that be anarchy make the most of it” Before the adjournment the court said that he desired to hear counsel on the last clause in the injunction which restrained the heads of the various organizations from conferring or ordering a strike. Arguments will be resumed to-day.