salutary in its operation, both as regards the employers and the employea. It is the strike feature and that alone which, from a business point of view, can induce the court to brand the Brotherhood men as unfit for its service. It is submitted that that feature should not be allowed to have that effect for various reasons.

Risks of a strike not obviated by excluding organized labor from employment.-It should be remembered, in the first place, that the risks of a strike are not obviated by excluding the members of the Brotherhood from the receivers' service. Men deeming themselves aggrieved and seeking relief or redress, though not associated in any formal way or for any general purposes, may easily unite for the single purpose of a strike. In that view the Brotherhood constitution and rules may well be regarded as operating in restraint of strikes. By compelling the question of strike or no strike to be acted upon affirmatively by four or five different and independent tribunals, they certainly tend to prohibit a strike that is rash, or reckless, or for other than weighty cause. Let it be borne in mind in the same connection that when a railroad or any other business concern is operated by receivers, the violence and lawlessness and other abuses of a strike are both less likely to develop than in other cases, and, if developed, are much more readily dealt with. Employees who understand they are officers of the court, will be slow to antagonize its authority, and if they do can be summarily controlled and punished through the process of contempt.

Organized labor improves the service.-While, therefore, under the circumstances of the present case, the possible evils of a strike would seem to be minimized, it should not be forgotten, in the second place, that the receivers' proposed remedy, to wit, a rule excluding or discharging from service any and all members of the Brotherhood, is itself open to serious objections and disadvantages. The best service is not to be expected from employees who smart under a sense of injustice and are in a chronic state of discontent. Yet such is the inevitable condition of employees whose right to organize for mutual protection and benefit is attacked and whose opportunity to labor is conditioned upon the sacrifice of that right. They can not help noting that organized capital is not so restricted. And when treatment so apparently unfair and discriminating is administered through the instrumentality of a court, the resulting discontent and resentment of employees are inevitably intensified because the law itself seems to have got wrong and in some unaccountable manner to have taken sides against them.

Thus the mischiefs apprehended from membership of the Brotherhood by the receivers' employees lie wholly in the future and are as small as is possible in the nature of things, while the mischiefs to arise from enforcing the receivers' proposed rule are real and immediate. Whether and how far they may be regarded as offsetting one another need not be discussed. The rejection of the proposed rule may reasonably be expected to be attended with such substantial advantages that the court can hardly hesitate as to the course which sound business policy dictates.

Advantages of labor organizations.-To begin with, not the least of such advantages is the avoidance of the necessarily invidious, if not illegal, position that a man shall go without work unless he give up a legal right—a right he may properly deem essential to his safety and welfare.

A correlative advantage is the conciliation of the employed through the full recognition of their rights and the clear indication of an honest purpose that no injustice to them is meditated.

Another advantage is the practical proof thus given that the greatest social problem of the day and the phase it has now assumed are fully appreciated. Whatever else may remain for the future to determine, it must now be regarded as substantially settled that the mass of wage-earners can no longer be dealt with by capital as so many isolated units. The time has passed when the individual workman is called upon to pit his feeble single strength against the might of organized capital. Organized labor now confronts organized capital-they are best off when friends, but are inevitably often at variance; as antagonists neither can afford to despise the other—and the burning question of modern times is, How shall the ever-recurring controversies between them be adjusted and terminated? If the combatants are left to fight out their battles between themselves by the ordinary agencies, nothing is more certain than that each will inflict incalculable injury upon the other; while, whichever may triumph will have won a victory only less disastrous and less regrettable than defeat. Arbitration-The court as arbitrator.-No better mode for the settlement of contests between capital and labor has yet been devised or tried than arbitration; and another crowning advantage of the course of action here advocated is that arbitration as the mode of settling differences between capital and labor must necessarily be applied in the course of the receivership, and arbitration in its best and most effective form. The court, by appointing receivers, constitutes itself not only an employer of labor,

but the arbitrator of all disputes between it and the receivers, who may justly be regarded as representatives of capital. It occupies the dual capacity of employer and arbitrator, naturally and inevitably. It is an arbitrator whose wisdom and impartiality are certainly should be, and must be assumed to be-beyond suspicion. It is an arbitrator capable of acting rapidly and summarily, if need be, and invested with power to enforce its own awards. It is an arbitrator with whom both parties have reason to be satisfied, both from its character and its ability to make its award effective, and might well be expected to furnish, should circumstances permit or require, a conspicuous object lesson illustrative of the value of the arbitration principle.

In short, the question being whether business policy requires the court to approve the rule that a member of the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen is ipso facto ineligible as an employee of the receivers of the Reading Railroad and an officer of the court, the conclusive considerations against the rule may be summed up as follows:

CONCLUSIONS.

1. The rule is of doubtful value as a preventive of strikes, because it leaves employees to act upon impulse and from passion and freed from the restraints of the Brotherhood regulations.

2. The rule is of doubtful value when the court is the real employer, both from the reluctance of the employed to defy the court's authority and from the power of the latter to speedily and summarily vindicate it.

3. The rule is of positively injurious tendency in the disaffection and discontent engendered among employees by the denial to them of rights enjoyed by citizens generally and deemed necessary for their security and comfort.

4. The repudiation of the rule, on the other hand, has the positive merit

(a) Of tending to secure for the service the good will of employees, and thus promoting its efficiency;

(b) Of recognizing the real conditions of the capital and labor problem and the fact that labor both has the right to organize and is organized;

(c) Of illustrating the working under the most favorable auspices of the principle of arbitration as the means of adjusting the differences between capital and labor; (d) Of demonstrating that there is not one law for one class of the community and another for another, but the same for all, and of thus tending to preserve for the law and for the judiciary by which it is administered that general respect and confidence which have always been a marked characteristic as well as excellence of our institutions.

RICHARD OLNEY.

Mr. FULLER. A lawyer will understand more about this letter than I would. But this able argument of the Attorney-General, together with that of eminent counsel from Washington and Philadelphia, did not impress the court, and the injunction was refused. One of the reasons of the court for refusing the order was the absence of law forbidding the discharge of employees for being members of labor organizations. The employees in Pennsylvania, then, after a hard struggleand I desire to emphasize that by saying that it was against all of the influences that the Philadelphia and Reading Railroad Company could bring to bear upon the legislators, in all the ways familiar to corporations like it procured the enactment of a law in Pennsylvania forbidding the discharge of employees on account of their being members of labor organizations. The courts then declared this law unconstitutional. This is our experience with injunctions, or, I might say, only a part of it. It has opened our eyes and we will not close them until a check is put upon the use of this machine, which has only one handle, and that handle made to fit the hands of the corporations.

There is no one question that has received more attention and caused more protestations by the railroad employees than has this glaring abuse of power by the judicial branch of our Government. It has been the subject of discussion in their meetings, secret and public, and the various magazines of these organizations contain many articles condemning it. That the committee may know how the rail

road employees feel on this question I submit to you the following resolutions passed by them in their conventions and union meetings; also a few editorials from their official organs:

[Resolution of union meeting of organized railroad employees of America, held at New York May 28, 1894.]

We strongly condemn the action of Judge Jenkins in issuing the aggressive and un-American writs which have emanated from his court, and applaud and approve the straightforward and fearless manner in which the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives have laid bare such flagrant abuses of the powers and privileges of a court of equity.

We view with intense satisfaction the consistent manner in which Judges Caldwell and Reiner have given labor organizations just and proper recognition in the courts. We assert that the time has come when organized labor should apply a power which it possesses, and which has long lain dormant, by discarding entirely political affiliation and, by united action and the ballot box, and upon legislative lines, exert an influence that will be heeded. (Railroad Trainmen's Journal for July, 1894, p. 585.)

[Resolution of the Second Biennial Convention of the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, passed at Galesburg, Ill., June 4, 1895.]

Whereas we deem this a fitting time to express our opinions on some of the decisions of our judiciary in respect to the relations of capital and labor, and as it appears to us that there is something radically wrong when the laws of our country can be so construed by one man that a thousand may be oppressed to the benefit of a few: Therefore, be it

Resolved, That the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, in convention assembled, do denounce in unmeasured terms the infamous decisions of Judges Ricks, Jenkins, and Dallas, and in contrast to these commend the one crumb of justice awarded to us by a man whom all fair-minded men admire, namely, Judge Caldwell, of the eighth judicial circuit, Arkansas; and be it further

Resolved, That we, the representatives of 30,000 trainmen, do hereby pledge ourselves to support for office only such men as will pledge themselves to administer the laws in keeping with their construction; and be it further

Resolved, That these resolutions be spread upon the minutes of this convention, and a copy sent to the Associated Press. (Proceedings of the Second Biennial Convention B. of R. T., p. 85.)

[Resolution of union meeting of organized railroad employees, held at San Antonio, Tex., September 9, 1896.]

Whereas there are three bills now pending in Congress, viz, the contempt bill, the arbitration bill, and the Phillips bill, which are intended to promote the best interests of railroad employees engaged in interstate traffic: Therefore, be it

Resolved, That we, the railroad employees of Texas, in union meeting assembled, do most heartily indorse the said bills, and request that the Senators and Congressmen from the Lone Star State give their influence and support to the aforesaid measures. (Railway Conductor for October, 1896, p. 612.)

[Resolution adopted at union meeting of organized railroad employees at McKees Rocks, Pa., September 9, 1897.]

Whereas the present condition of political and industrial affairs of our country are such as to command an expression from the wage-workers of the land: Therefore, be it

Resolved, That we, the members of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, Brotherhood of Locomtive Firemen, Order of Railway Conductors, Order of Railroad Telegraphers, and Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, of western Pennsylvania, in joint meeting here assembled, denounce government by injunction, and believe that by it our liberties are being gradually taken away from us; and we demand of Congress that some limit be placed on the power of Federal judges.

[Resolution of State legislative board of railroad employees of Pennsylvania, passed at Scranton, Pa., September 23, 1897.]

Whereas we view with alarm the arbitrary interference of Federal judicial authorities in local affairs, and denounce it as a violation of the Constitution of the United States and a crime against free institutions, and we especially object to government by injunction as a new and highly dangerous form of oppression by which Federal

judges, in contempt of the laws of the States and rights of the citizens, become at once legislators, judges, and executors; and

Whereas a bill passed at the last regular session of the United States Senate relative to contempts in Federal courts, and providing for trials by jury in certain cases of contempts, be it

Resolved, In convention assembled of the State Legislative Board of Railroad Employees of Pennsylvania, held in the city of Scranton, Pa., September 23, 1897, we do respectfully urge and pray the speedy passage at the next regular session of Congress the above referred to bill, or a bill similar in character, so as to restrict the Federal judges in cases of contempts; that the spirit as well as the letter of the Constitution of the United States shall be fully preserved to the people, and that the greatest liberty and freedom consistent with the common good of all shall be enjoyed, as was intended by our forefathers and by them bequeathed to us, their descendants; and be it further

Resolved, That this board recommend each lodge and division of railroad employees in the State to appoint a committee to obtain the name and signature of each citizen who loves liberty and a republic above a selfish greed of gain to a petition to the next Congress of the United States pertaining to this subject; be it further

Resolved, That the honorable president, the honorable vice-president, and the honorable secretary of this board be hereby constituted a committee to confer with the railroad legislative boards of sister States and Territories and urge them to like action in the premises, and also to solicit the cooperation of all organized labor bodies to unite with us in petition, to the end that a uniformity of action may be taken throughout the United States in this matter; be it further

Resolved, That the president appoint a committee of five to prepare a suitable form or head to a petition to be sent each lodge and division in the State. (Proceedings of Biennial Convention of State Legislative Board, p. 45.)

[Resolution of the second biennial convention of the Order of Railroad Telegraphers, passed at Peoria, Ill., May 25, 1899.]

Whereas we view with alarm the arbitrary interference of Federal judicial authorities in local and national affairs, and denounce it as a violation of the Constitution of the United States and a crime against free institutions, and we especially object to government by injunction as a new and highly dangerous form of oppression by which Federal judges, in contempt of the laws of the States and rights of citizens, become at once legislators, judges, and executors: Therefore be it

Resolved, That the Order of Railroad Telegraphers, in convention assembled in the city of Peoria, Ill., May 23, 1899, do respectfully urge and pray that Congress may pass a law so as to restrict the Federal judges in cases of contempt; that the spirit as well as the letter of the Constitution of the United States shall be fully preserved to the people, and that the greatest liberty and freedom consistent with the common good of all shall be enjoyed, as was intended by our forefathers, and by them bequeathed to us, their descendants. (Supplement to the Railroad Telegrapher, July, 1899, p. 135.)

[Editorial from Railroad Trainmen's Journal for July, 1893, page 561.]

* * * The most dangerous question which confronts the country and the people of to-day is the one question of the encroachment of capital on the rights of labor and the assistance given capital by an ever-willing judiciary, eager to construe the statutes in favor of corporations and against labor. This is a question which our next Congress will have to give all the consideration which the gravity of the situation demands. If the fault is in the laws, then let them be modified or repealed altogether, and if the fault is in the misinterpretation of them, then let the interpreters be removed. Laboring men would rest easier under a decision founded upon the true intent of a law, even though the decision were against them, than they could under a distorted one, though the conditions were more favorable. It is not the intention to have decided as right or legal the placing or leaving of trains or engines where the lives and property of the public would be jeopardized, but the right to quit when proper precautions have been taken to avoid all danger without being held and punished as a deserter from the Army or Navy is the right of every man, and he should be given that right legally, or the right of discharge should be taken from corporations unless the employee sees fit to quit. Let one law be made to govern both sides of the question; let each receive the same advantages or reverses. It is true that the decisions have placed the employees on the same level with their employers, but of what use would it be to them should they seek redress under the same law?

Labor has been the unwilling witness of many object lessons the past year. It has

been the disgusted spectator at courts where prejudice overcame justice, until patience has ceased, and it demands that wrongs be righted and that laws placing men on the same level be enacted.

* * *

[Editorial from Railroad Trainmen's Journal for October, 1894, p. 884.]

* * * Experience has brought the opinion that the power of the courts is too far-reaching in this respect, and that it is too arbitrary. It is against the American idea of fair play and not in keeping with the personal freedom of action which is one of the attributes of free government. The trial of the A. R. U. officers under the charge of contempt of court furnishes an idea of what power the courts can assume. Trial by jury was denied on the same grounds that the bench has taken in regard to injunctions and strikes, and which is far from popular with the great body of the people. The courts have taken to themselves power and jurisdiction that threaten the personal liberty of every inhabitant of the United States. There is crying need of legislation taking from the courts the power of judging arbitrarily the limit of personal action. Government by injunction is not good government, and must, in the interest of general safety, give way to government by law. There is great dissatisfaction of the people, and there will continue to be as long as they know there are defects in the law and its administration.

* *

*

[Editorial from the Railroad Trainmen's Journal for September, 1897, p. 830.]

The injunctions issued by the judges of West Virginia have aroused the indignation of men the country over, and the expression coming from them is anything but complimentary to the jurists who have disgraced their profession at the mandates of the coal-mine owners. The right of free speech, as guaranteed by the Constitution, has been taken away by the bench, and the action has been so highhanded and utterly outrageous that every sense of decency rebels at the ruling of the tools of the corporation. The people of the United States are about on the point of protesting against the sweeping assumption of authority by the bench.

[Editorial from the Railway Conductor for September, 1896, p. 544.]

* * *

* * * The courts are working the injunction overtime, and if they do not moderate their devotion to this latest discovery in the science of legalized tyranny, they may be made to suffer for some portion, at least, of the crimes they have committed in its name.

[Editorial from the Railway Conductor for November, 1898, p. 766.]

THE HAMMOND INJUNCTION.

If the reports given by the daily papers are to be accepted as accurate, the American Steel and Wire Company, of Cleveland, Ohio, is the beneficiary of the most drastic injunction yet issued by the Federal courts. This company is a member of the wire-nail trust, and when its employees went on a strike the whole force of the " combination was brought to bear to secure the aid of the courts in keeping the strikers in subjection. In response to the demands thus made, Judge Hammond, of the United States circuit court, issued an injunction which virtually makes it unlawful for the employees to talk to each other about strikes. According to the published synopsis of this document, the striker must not interfere with, obstruct, or stop any of the business of the company or its agents, servants, or employees in any of its works anywhere; he must not enter upon the company's grounds for the purpose of interfering therewith in any manner; he must not compel or induce or attempt to compel or induce, by threat, intimidation, or persuasion, force, or violence, any of the employees to refuse or fail to perform their duties; he must not congregate for the purpose of intimidation; he must not post pickets or establish a patrol; he must not go "singly or collectively" to the homes of company employees for the purpose of intimidation; he must not threaten in any manner the wives and families of the employees at their homes.

When taken by themselves, some of these prohibitions would be accepted without question, but when persuasion is included in the general inhibition, it at once becomes apparent that the purpose of the court was to leave the employees in the hands of their employers, with no recourse save in abject submission. It is true the injunction very carefully adds "for purposes of intimidation," when it forbids the congregating of the strikers; but since it is left for a hostile court to determine in every case what that purpose is, the right of peaceful assembly must be a dead letter to those men. This despotic invasion of the constitutional rights of freedom should open the eyes of S. D. c. 58

-3