Show JUDGE HARLAN'S HARLA S DECISION The ruling of Justice stice Harlan of 01 the Supreme court at Chicago yesterday October 1 in relation to the noted strike injunction order Issued by Judge Jenkins contains important matter maUer for tor the be consideration of both employers and employee In defining denning the legal rights of the latter with reference to what are known as al strikes the justice pre presents ente the case cae clearly and hi his de definitions should be studied Itu carefully that their effect may ma be thoroughly com com- comprehended comprehended The injunction was waa issued in December last when the receivers of the Northern Pacific railway sought to reduce the wages of employee and when a strike was WaR threatened secured an order from Judge Jenkins enjoining the men tram from taking the proposed action The injunction restrained the employ from rom combining and conspiring to quit with or without notice the ser ser- service service vice of the said receivers with the object ot and aDd intent of ot crippling the property in their custody or embarrassing the operation of at the road and aDd also alia from so 10 quitting the service of ot the said laid receivers with o 0 without notice as to cripple the property property prop prop- property erty or prevent or hinder the operation of the road The first quotation made Justice lan Har-lan Har- Har Harlan lan laD sa says should remain as it is II and andon andon andon on this point be overruled the application application tion of the labor unions representatives representatives tives who claimed that it was wa too sweeping and an infringement of in- in individual individual In Individual rights But as to the second quotation from the injunction part was WI set et a aside as being in excess of f the law and aDd a contravention of constitutional constitutional principles The effect of this l is to maintain the right of employee to strike that is to leave leae the service of of employers either singly or In a bo body y when the conditions of employment are not satisfactory bu but t not tu to allow any interference with those thole who wanto want to work In ID passing upon this question of the right to quit work the court says that It if an quits quite without cause caule and andin andin in violation of or an express contract to serve for a stated time then his quit quit- quitting quitting quitting ting would not Dot be of right TakIng further hold bold of f the subject however where such contract does doel not exist Justice Harlan lays down the rule that b thaia thata a court of ot equity cannot by Injune- Injune lion Ion prevent one individual from quitting the service ef of another aDother For acourt a court to do so 10 he be says is Uil not Dot justified by any authority autho to which our attention has been called or of which we are aware It would bean be an invasion of one ones one's 8 natural liberty to compel him to work for or to 0 remain In the personal service of an- an another another an another other One who is placed in such luch restraint is In a condition of Involuntary Involuntary involuntary tary a servitude servitude a condition which the supreme laws of ot the land declare shall haU not exist anywhere within the juri juris- juris jurisdiction jurisdiction diction of the United States It was urged in support of Gt the In- In Injunction injunction in injunction junction that the refusal of the men to work for the reduced schedule wo 1 cripple the pro property erty and prevent or hinder the operation of the road This fhil feature the court said was a matter for the consideration of the receivers themselves as al employers employer They made the order for tor its ts effects in tn the line suggested were responsibility of the makers If It the he through peaceful opera co cooperation cooperation tion as the result of friendly argument argument men ment persuasion or conference among th themselves chose to assert the right of each and everyone every one to refuse further service under a schedule ule of reduced wages such action would not be orf anal Inal or illegal even eveD though they firmly believed such quitting without notice would temporarily inconvenience Inconvenience ence the receivers and the public go 80 long So-long long loog as u the men peaceably exercised their right of quitting the service in- in intending I in intending tending thereby to secure better wag wages yet not Interfering with the free action of others the loss lose resulting from tram their theil cessation of work in consequence of the refusal of ot the receivers to accede to t the terms gp upon n which the men were were- willing were 1 willing to remain in the service would be incidental to the situation and not chargeable against in the exercise of ot a lawful right 3 As AI to the retention in the injunction of the provision relating to i and conspiring to quit with the intent ot of crippling or embarrassing the road the court held beld that thi this thia was wal a necessary sary part of at the courts court's order and must be construed as al referring only to acts acta of violence intimidation and wrong Among these thee acts the court includes force threats threat Intimidation toW toward d who do do- donot not do-not not join them or an any device to hinder binder alarm or interfere with others who take or de desire to take their places A decision on the subject of strikes from such eminent Judicial authority should be highly appreciated by both boUa and at the present juncture If the rule laid down by Justice Harlan had bad been recognized by contending parties in strike COD COD- con contests tests there would have been prevented much of ot the lo loss of life Ute and destruction of property which have bave attended such disagreements It was the rule advocated advocated Dated by conservative ve people through throughout i out the country but bot in very many Instances was wholly rejected both by employers and those in their servIce each class taking an extreme view As the matter now stands the he legal aspect of a labor conflict Is his 1 Employers have no right to 0 compel men to remain in their service 7 under Linder unless express contract and the aid of courts court cannot be Invoked tot to t 4 fleet such compulsion 2 if men do donot not DOt wish lab to work on the terms offered lQ ay aay quit either singly gr or In ID a a body and and by mutual agreement but it If I Ibe they resort to intimidation or violence I or prevent others from working such t r are criminal The rule is h i simple plain plaiD straightforward and ought ouCh to be te lived Jived up to |