People's Pilot, Volume 3, Number 43, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 13 April 1894 — A JUDGE ON TRIAL. [ARTICLE]

A JUDGE ON TRIAL.

Congressmen Be«ln an Inveatlratlos «f Judge Jen kina’ Action. Milwaukee, April 11.—It was after several delays and false starts that the congressional investigation into the acts of Judge Jenkins in connection with the issuance of An injunction restraining the employes of the Northern Pacific railroad from quitting its service, “with or without notice,” was finally begun Monday in the spacious club-room of the Pfister hotel. The three inquisitors representing the government of the United States sat in a row before a long desk, while opposite sat Attorney Harper, of Terre Haute, Ind., the representative of the labor men. Attorney Harper placed a handful of documents ’in evidence and pointed out that the receivers themselves represented that there was no contract with the men. The features of the proceedings were: That Congressman Terry made the point that the receivers slid recognize the chiefs by sending them notices of intent to cut the wages; that the men considered the injunction binding on them to remain in the employ of the road whether satisfied or not; that the acceptance of the new schedule of wages was made with the shadow of the injunction over them; that the men were hired by the day or by the mile and could be discharged at any time; that the injunction has practically rendered the unions inoperative. Edgar T. Clark, grand chief of the Order of Railway Conductors, was the first witness. He proved a shrewd, plain speaker and conservative in his views. He explained the workings of the order and showed that it required a two-thirds vote of the men in order to have a strike. He gave a history of the conferences with the receivers and showed that the injunctions were issued before efforts to arrive at an amicable understanding could be reached.

During the evidence the witness gave his sentiments as follows: “I believe that next to the home the labor organizations are the pillars of our government. They teach men obedience to the laws and make them better citizens while advancing their interests and those of their employers.” Mr. Clark said he had not been served with the injunction, although a United States marshal had hunted for him. He is bound by the order, however, and would not have sanctioned a strike under the circumstances. He said also that the men felt bound by the order not to quit the employ of the road and would not strike. In answer to Representative Boatner, Mr. Clark said he did not think the injunction had done any harm so far as the Northern Pacific employes were concerned, but it had been harmful in a general way to workingmen, as ha believed it was an abridgement of their constitutional rights, and established a precedent which would be followed by all courts had not congress been called on to investigate. Mr. Sargent’s testimony was practically to the same effect