ftDERAL BEPOR'UlR)
vol. 61.
of the cllse we think, does not exclulle the hypothin deposit Lewis as the agent of the .·. It ma,y be presumed that what he did was within theCQJiltemplation of,·theparties when the money was handed to him, whiletlJ,e deposit was nominally on account of N. Son; it was really on account of the plaintiff. Now, it is :firmly settled that the contract of an agent is the contract of his principal, for whom he acted, and that the undisclosed principal may sue thereon at law in his own name, and this even where the contract is in writing, and the principal is not mentioned therein. Skinner v. Barn. & Adol. 437; Barry v. Page, 10 Gray, 398; Ford v. Williams, .21 How. 287. Hence, in the case of the Duke of Norfolk v. Worthy, 1 Camp. 337, where money of the principal was paid by the agent as a deposit on a contract made by and in the name of the agent, who apparently was acting on his own account, it was held that the principal might recover back the deposit in a suit at law mhis own naI;lle, ,the contract .having been rescinded. The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.
LAKE ERIE & W. RY. CO. v. BAILEY et al. (Circuit CQurt, D. Indianl\. January 20, 1893.)
No.8,8U·. MASTER AND SERVANT-LABOR ORGANIZATIONS-CONTEMPT.
Where 'tlie memberS "of a labor organization combine and confederate for thepU1'Pose of enforcing their demands by the seizure of their employers' property, or to llNvent other men, by force and intimidation, I;uchemp}oynient, they are guilty of a crime; and, where from such acts violate an injunction, they wlll be punished for contempt of court. .
On the 16th day of January, 1893, the Lake Erie & Western Railway Company filed its bill for injunction against the defendants to restrain them from obstructing and interfering with the movements of.· its trains. A temporary restraining order was issued at once, in accordance with the prayer of the bill, and a further hearing of the cause was set for the 25th day of January, 1893, and certified copies of this order were served upon·. fhe defendants by the marshal. Afterwards, upon affidavits filed by the com· plainant showing that certain of the defendants had violated the restraining order, a rule was entered against them, requiring them to show cause why they should not be attached for contempt. On their failure to appear pursuant thereto, it appearing that service of the monitory order had been made upon them, an attachment was issued, and they were brought the court and tried. As a result of the trial, some of the defendants were convicted, and others were acquitted. W.' E. Hackedorn, JOhIfn.Cockrum, and Miller, Winter & Elam, . for Lake Erie. & W. Ry. Co.
LAKEl ERIE &
w.
RY. CO:V. BAILEY.
'495
BAKER, District Judge, in pronouncing sentence upon those who were convicted, said orally: The court recognizes the right of any man or number of men to -quit the service of their employers, and it recogriizes the right of men to organize if they deem it expedient to better their condition. It also recognizes the hardships of the life of the average laboring man. Their eonditions are often such as to touch the sensibilities of a feeling heart. The court is also aware of the scanty wages which they often receive, and of their long and arduous hours of service, frequently exposed to the rigors of an inclement season. All these things are caleulated to produce sympathy in every right-minded man. It is laudable for men, whether they are day laborers or are engaged in other vocations of life, by organization to take any lawful course for the purpose of bettering their condition; but it must be done aceording to those principles that lie at the very foundation of the social compact. Man was created for organized society; and in ·order that society shall exist, whatever may be the form of government, it is absolutely indispensable that the great fundamental and God-given right of every human- being, unrestrained and unintimidated, to labor and enjoy the fruits of his toil, should be protected. There is little excuse for labor to organize, and, by unlawful means, attempt to overthrow the law. Society is organized under our form of government on the recognition of man's rights as man. If society were overthrown, and men' turned back into con·ditions of anarchy, as they were, in large measure, during the dark ages, when power and force made right, the condition of the laboring man would not be bettered. If such were the condition of society, the man or the men with great intellectual power and great wealth would become the masters of the laboring classes as in those dark ages, and the laborer would be little better than a slave. The effort of these defendants, as the evidence in this case shows, is an effort, not only to overthrow the law, but also an effort to overturn the just authority of the courts. To permit this would be an offense, not only against society, but against the laboring men themselves. In the convulsions of society, when law becomes silent and force reigns, it is the humble and the poor and the powerless that become the victims. The condition of things that is evidenced by these strikes is well calculated to impress thoughtful men with their danger. I do not know but that I am a little old-fashioned in my notions, but I confess that I cannot look with any degree of tolerance on the false and dangerous teachings of those who actively, or by their silent acquiescence, are leading labor organizations to think that, because they are organized in associations, they have the right to seize property, or, by intimidation, to prevent well-disposed people from laboring. In my judgment, it is no less criminal for an organized body of men to commit these wrongs than it wonld be for a single man, armed with bludgeons or revolvers, to commit· the same wrongs on the persons or property of others. I confess that, so far as I can see, 1£ my property or personal rights are invaded by a body of men who Jeall themselves "organized laborers," there is no :flore distinction,
496
FEDEBA;L REPORTER,
vol. ,61.
of God's law or human law, if, the same things' were done by.a single individual. Indeed, it would be more if it were done by midnight robber 'in the silent watches of. the night than if it were done by an organized body of men. t think.it would .be wholesome if' this lesson, which was taught me bYIR-Y parents in, a rude frontier cabin in the early settleml:ntsof Northwestern Ohio, had been taught these men by their fathers and mothers. When I come to the. final disposition of, cases, I shall deal justly and mercifully with these men; but :ldo notjntend, that it shall ever be said of me, if anythingsp,all eyer be said,that, as a magistrate, I failed in the discharge, of Il;ly duty in any such way as tended to unsettle the foundations goyernment. ,I am charged with a great and solemn duty. Tl;1ere can be no greater or. more solemn, duty than, that which judges, to. impress on men, not only the supremacy of the l.aw, t4erightful supremacy of the law, but that it is necessary t¥t :Q1ell.should be punished. Who violate, the law, in order that the, fabrjc of human society may ;not go to pieces. In thil:! cas,e. the that there are a D,ulllber of men who beloIlgto a secret labor organization whose "ramifications reach, not otilyover the entire extent 'of the United States, but into Oanada as. w¢ll. It has kindred associations by other names in Europe. all these organizatioD,s have the same general aim, and that is by and terro,rism to compel their employers to submit tJieir business, their property, and their means of livelihood to the of these associations. , In their secret, oath-bound assemblies they for themselves on what terms they will work .for others. They refuse those who ll:re not members of their the right to labor when they desire to do so. Those who pot submit to their exactions have no more option On their business than has the belated traveler when a highwayman. presents a revolver, and bids him submit. As I say, I do not see any differe;nce, either morally or legally, between this sort of business, where im organized body of men combine for the criminal and unlawful purposeQf COmpelling somebody else, against his will, to submit to their demands, than if the same thing were done bya single individual. If they compel submission, it is robbery, because whoever compels me, by force or terrorism, to give up one dim.e of my money, or one dime's worth of my property, is equally guilty, whether it be the man who meets me .on the street corner in the njghttime, or au organized band of strikers who take possession of 'my property and deprive me of its use. But these com· binadons are. infinitely worse than isolated violations of the law, in that they teach general disregard and contem}?t of law. They make. people think t,hat human rights are of no value. They teach the fantastic and monstrous doct.rine that a man wholshired to labor, and is paidfor4is work, has some sort·of equitable right in the property of his employer, toget,her with a right of perpetual employmen,t. It has been said on thQ of. the United Sta.tes senate that the laborer has a of equitable ben on the property of the man for whom he works, whose mOlleybought the property, together with
will
LAKE EltIE& W. BY. CO. II. BAILEY.
497
the right of perpetual employment. It may do for men that are reckless of the welfare of human society-who care nothing for its peace and good order-to imperil life, property, and liberty, and the perpetuity of our institutions, by teaching such doctrines, but the judge who tolerates it ought to be stripped of his gown, and be driven from the sacred temple of justice. I think these men have been misled; I think they have been deceived by false teachers; but still they ought to have known better than to violate the law of the land, and to trample under foot the solemn processes of the court. I want it to be understood, so far as this court is concerned, that such offenses will not be deemed trivial, and that the law cannot be violated with impunity by any combination of men, under whatever name they may clothe themselves. They will not be permitted to violate the law, and then set themselves above the court. If laborers wish to organize to learn the principles of political economy, to learn something about the great laws of supply and demand, or to learn something about the effect of immigration, and the increase of the number of laborers on the wage market of the country; if they want to organize for the purpose of quitting their employers; in short, if they want to organize to do anything that is recognized as within the pale of the law,-I have no word of criticism. I think that such organizations for lawful purposes are to be commended. But when these organizations, as I said OD,yesterday, combine and confederate for the purpose of seizing other men's property, or when they undertake, by force and intimidation, to drive other men away from employment, and thus deny them the right of earning a livelihood, they commit a crime,-they commit a crime that this court cannot suffer to go unpunished. There ought to be blazed on the minds of every one of these men that to a labor organization, as with a hot iron, so that they shall know and understand it, that, while it is lawful and commendable to organize for legitimate and peaceful purposes, it is criminal to organize for the invasion of the rights of others to enjoy life, liberty, and property. I will not pass upon the cases of these men now, and before I do pass upon them I shall be glad to know who and what they are; something about their former lives; what they have been doing; whether they have been engaged in criminal combinations before this. The gravity of crime depends upon the character of the criminal. An boy who, in the heat of excitement or the impulse of the moment, is led into the commission of crime, is to be looked upon with sympathy, and ought to be dealt with lightly; but the man who is given to lawlessness, who is a confirmed criminal and violator of the law, on whom reason and mercy would have no influence, ought to be made to feel the heavy hand of the law, so that if respect for law, and respect for the rights of their neighbors, will have no influence upon them, the power of the law and its judgments may have. v.61F.no.5-32
-498 In re BRIGGS. HUTCHINS v.BR1GGS et al. SAME v. TATE et al. , (CIrcuit Court of Appeals, SecoDdQircuIt. "April 18, 1894.) ",tInder the supervisory jurIsdict{oIiover all bankruptcy proceedings conferred on the circuit court (Rev. St.,U. S. § 4986), it may entertain a petition to review the refusal of the dIstrict court to remove an assIgnee in baI$Tuptcy. Alit, March 3, 1891, § 4, lYhich transfers to the cIrcuit courts of appeals by that act, and to the supreme court, the jurisdictIon theretofore eocercIsed by the circuIt courts on appeal or writ of error, does not a1fect the ",upervisory jtU1sdictIon over- bankruptcy Is on the circuit c()lIrts by Rev. St. U. S. § 4986. COURT OF ApPEALS. , OF CmpurT COURT.
'i.' 2.
from the Q;urt of the United States for the South· ern ,District of New York. Petition()f appeal from the decision of the district court in the matter of Alanson T. Briggs, a bankrupt, and in the suits of Augustus Hutchins, as his assignee, against Alanson T. Briggs and others, and of the same against Amelia A. Tate and others. Samuel E. Briggs, as a creditor of the above-named ban}il'upt, made a motion in the bankruptcy proceedings pending in the United States district court for the southern district of New York to remove the assignee in bankruptcy. He also moved, as a defendant in two suits in equity pending In that court, brought by the assignee of the bankrupt, to dismiss the suits for want of prosecution. The" district court denied t1}e motion to remove the assignee, and denied the motion to dlsp}lss, the suits in equity, except upon condition of payment by defendant to the assignee of the sumo! $2;650, as counsel fee, costs, and disbursements. Thereupon, Briggs filed in this court a petition appeal, praying that this coUrt exercise jurisdiction under section 4986 of the Revised Statutes of the Unlted States,' conferring a general superintendenceand jurisdiction upon t1}e court of all cases and questions arising In the district, court, when sitting as a court of bankruptcy, and review and reverse the' proceedings of the district court. The assignee In bankruptcy moves to dismiss the petition of appeal.' ,
Gao. O. Lay, for appellant Briggs. Wm. F. Scott, for assignee. ' Before WALLAOE, LAOOMBE, 'and 'SHIPMAN, Oircuit Judges. WALLAOE, Circuit Judge. Properly speaking, there are no appeals pending in this court. No assignment of errors has been filed, no appeal or writ of error has been allowed, and no citation has been issued. But the theory of the petitioner is that the circuit court has no longer jurisdiction to review proceedings in bankruptcy,