Show JUDGE JENKIN IS l ROA TED TO A TRN J Report of the Special Investigating Investigat-ing Committee < GROSS ABUSE OF POWER IS PLAINLY SHOWN Orders Were Beyond His Jurisdiction as a Judge i Second Order Was Muck More Reprehensible Repre-hensible TItan the First Xothing However Found in the Testimony Taken That Savors of Corruption I and His Impeachment Is Therefore There-fore Not Recommended Is Quite Possible That His Acts Were Sincere But They Were Wrong Washington May Representative Boatner chairman of the special committee com-mittee of the House judiciary committee commit-tee appointed to investigate the Northern North-ern Pacific decisions of Judge Jenkins today submitted to the full judiciary committee the majority report cf the special committee The report was discussed for two hours but no action was taken by the full committee The report was made the special order for the full commit tee next Tuesday Representative W A Stone of Pennsylvania Penn-sylvania the Republican member of the committee dissents from the majority ma-jority report on the ground that it is an attempt to make a judicial ruling but he has not yet submitted a minority minor-ity report After reciting the well known facts and circumstances leading up to the granting of the two orders of injunc tion by Judge Jenkins the majority report proceeds a follows The Majority Report Notwithstanding the suggestion of the employees that they desired to confer the orders were immediately obtained without waiting the results of a conference or being in possession of any definite information of the intention in-tention of the employees with respect to the schedules upon which they solicited so-licited a conference The original order or-der received on December 19 had a twofold aspect It reduced existing wages and enjoined and prohibited those who were to receive them if they remained in the service of the company com-pany from quitting the service with or without notice cripple the property or injure the operating of the road On being advised that if so ordered or advised by the officers of the organization organiza-tion to which they belonged the men would quit the service in a body and under the constructions placed upon the existing order the injunction by those who had obtained i they would thereby commit a contempt of court and were liable to punishment for so doing the officers of the company immediately im-mediately asked for and thejudge gante the second order of injunction injunc-tion December 23 The object of this was to insure to the company tlje compulsory com-pulsory views of the operatives then in its employ because under the first order of Injunction the men could not quit without being guilty of contempt and would not do so unless ordered by the officers of their several organizations organiza-tions and if these officers were prohibited pro-hibited from advising the strike it was perfectly evident that the officers so enjoined could not discharge this function of their office and the men could not quit when prohibited from so doing by the court and not authorized author-ized to do so by the organization by whose rules and regulations they were governed This was the object sought to be ootained that the order was drawn to effectuate it and it was signed by the judge with that intent the language of the order and the concomitant circumstances left no room for doubt Gross Abuse of Power Your committee has no hesitationin declaring that the orders rendered were a gross abuse of the power of the court were supported by neither reason rea-son nor authority were beyond the jurisdiction ju-risdiction of the judge and were therefore there-fore void The second or supplementary supplement-ary writ was more reprehensible than the first because the judge was advised ad-vised before he rendered i of the exact ex-act object and purpose sought to be accomplished There was no suggestion sugges-tion in either of these letters of any fear of illegal acts but the fear from suspense of traffic of an attending damage to the road and inconvenience to the public were the sole reasons for the action which the judge took Your committee also finds that no measures looking to a strike had been inaugurated inaugur-ated nor does any seem to have been in contemplation nor does i appear that any of the persons named or referred re-ferred to in the writ of injunction have remained in the service of the company against their will I does appear however that while they regarded the writ void they believed tht so long as it was in force they were bound to obey it under penalty of punishment or contempt if they violated i and this consideration might have been more effective than they were aware of in inducing them to remain in the service of the receivers I Your committee does not concur in the opinion of the judge that the decision de-cision rendered in the Toledo cases page 54 federal reports bv Judges Taft and Ricks et al support the contention conten-tion in the case under consideration On the contrary both of the cases clearly recognize the principle that counts of equity cannot enforce the specific performance of the contract for personal service by writs of injunction and other processes but that In such cases the remedy is at law by an action for damages They also clearly recognize recog-nize the right of the laboring people a a means of selling their labor at a higher price of coercing employers to accede to their demands In detecting the lawfulness of a proceeding of this kind the judges justly take the law as sustaining the employee and inconvenience incon-venience to the general public cannot be considered Lawful Rights Defined I employees have the awful right to combine in a strike for the purpose of forcing compliance with their demands de-mands or securing the highest wages and best terms possible that right cannot can-not be removed by the fact that its exercise levied on the interests of others Its principle applies of course only to those strikes which exist in the withdrawal from service by concerted combination Should violence be done to the person or property of the employer em-ployer by those who have combined against him If others would supply the service which the strikers have abandoned aban-doned and are prevented from doing so by violence intimidation threats or other unawful means these acts are not only unlawful but in most instances in-stances would constitute violations of the criminal laws and be punishable as such The conclusionOf the judg that the employees of th > Northern Pacific t i v r pm Railroad company might be forced by I him by writs or injunction to protect that company from loss and the public pub-lic from inconvenience by remaining in its service at a rate of wages to I which they had not given their assent is one in which we cannotconcur and I which in our judgment is supported I by none of the decisions which he I cited Nothing Corrupt I Your committee find nothing in the testimony nor see any corrupt intention inten-tion on the part of the judge to render ren-der these orders I is altogether possible pos-sible that he was sincere in his conviction con-viction This view prevents us from recommending any proceedings looking to impeachment but in order that there may be no further excuse for the rendition of such orders or decrees and that the courts of equity of the United States may not be deceived a tothe extent of their powers of enforcing en-forcing contracts for personal services by legal process we recommend the 1 enactment of a statute which will prevent pre-vent them from doing so > We also feel constrained to call attention I at-tention to the abuses which have assumed grown up under the powers by judges of the courts of the United States to appoint receivers for railroad rail-road corporations these orders being rendered in court under proceedings instituted nominally for the purpose of effecting foreclosures but really for effectng forecosures the purpose of averting the pursuit of creditors and the enforcement of unlawful un-lawful obligations are considered as interlocutionary and not subject to appeal ap-peal I however the appeal is granted grant-ed it does not have the effect of suspending sus-pending the execution of the decree and the road going into the hands of a receiver who operates it at least pending appeal and this acton of the judge is entirely independent of any I control whatever by the owner and creditors of the party Powers exercised exer-cised by courts thrqugh Teceivers are purely their own creation the result of judicial construction not ascertained ascer-tained or limited by statute and therefore there-fore dangerous Your committee is of the opinion that Cases for which receivership re-ceivership may be ordered in the courts of the United States should be declared de-clared by statute The Anomaly Presented The anomaly has been presented for years of great railway corporations being operated and the business of common carriers carried on by the United States through judicial lines of the government and by judges possessing possess-ing at once powers pertaining to other judicial officers which become binding with those powers of the president and directors of the corporation united in one and the same person The committee is alsoof the opinion that the power asserted by the judges of the United States courts to punish for contempt is dangerous and should be limited by lawn law-n the case reported in the Federal Reporter in re Rigins Judge Pardee lC declared that his power to punish for contempt was unlimited both as to the amount of the fine and duration of imprisonment In hisjudgment he could decide without appeal what constituted constitut-ed a contempt who committed the act to be inflict the extent of punishment ifct of ed In that case he held a number violations of the criminal laws of state atons of of Texas likewise to be contempt his court court Under his construction an assault and battery or any other violence or unfairness committed by an employee or servant of a railroad company in the hands ofa receiver would be considered con-sidered a contempt off his court I this principle Isa correct one and the decisions seem to have been cited bother b-other courts when approved > I would be extremely convenient to substitute it for the criminal laws ot the states Exercise of police powers and the protection pro-tection of life and property by those agencies would be relieved by the authority au-thority of a United States judge who instituted proceedings for contempt Limitations contained in the constitution constitu-tion viz Providing for trials by jury being confronted by witnesses being represented by counsel etc etc would likewise be relieved Without taking issue with the judges as to whether they have correctly or incorrectly state the law on this important subject sub-ject your committee is of the opinion that the protection of the property rights should be left in the hands of executive officers and that violations of laws should be punished by proceedings proceed-ings defined and provided by law and that in order to prevent the abuse of authority claimei by the judiciary their power to punish for contempt should be defined and limited by law |