Mackall v. Ratchford

• Decision Date: 21 August 1897
• Citation: 82 F. 41
• Court: Circuit Court of Virginia
• Parties: MACKALL v. RATCHFORD et al.

82 F. 41

MACKALL v. RATCHFORD et al.

United States Circuit Court, D. West Virginia.

August 21, 1897

A. B Fleming, for complainant.

John J Davis, John W. Davis, and W. Scott, for defendants.

GOFF Circuit Judge.

As to the law applicable to the matter now under consideration counsel have not differed, and the court has no trouble. It is concerning the facts-- what they prove, and their proper application to the law involved-- that counsel have expressed differences, and the court is required to decide. Many matters foreign to the issue now presented have been referred to by counsel and testified about by witnesses, but the court will exclude them from its consideration. Matters referring to 'free speech,' 'natural rights,' and the 'liberty of the citizen' are not now involved in this issue nor are they in danger. They will survive this ordeal and it is to be hoped that they will be further endeared to us all, if that be possible, by our mutual experience herein and the incidents connected therewith. The right of free speech has not been abridged, nor in any manner interfered with. The 'organizer' has spoken to his heart's content here, there, and everywhere. The 'camp' has heard him, and been electrified by his eloquence. City, town and hamlet have been visited by him, and have given him generous welcome. Public buildings have been thrown open, street corners utilized, the crossroads and highways called into requisition. The right of the people to assemble and discuss matters in which they feel an interest has had an exemplification during the last month in this and adjoining states that has been pleasing to our citizenship, and as gratifying to all true lovers of republican government as it has been unwelcome and unexpected to the agitator and the demagogue, who it seems delight in drawing lurid pictures of the days yet to come, when 'liberty' shall have perished from the face of the earth, and 'free speech' shall be but the dim remembrance of a dream long passed, recalling but faintly the days when freedom yet tarried among men, and was worshipped by those who called themselves 'freemen.'

The simple question here is, are these defendants in contempt of this court? On the 16th inst. this court granted an injunction restraining the defendants and all others from in anywise interfering with the management, operation, and conducting of the mines in the bill mentioned, either by menaces, threats, or any character of intimidation used to prevent the employes of said mines from going to or from the same, or from engaging in their usual business of mining. All persons were restrained from entering upon the property of the Montana Coal & Coke Company for the purpose of interfering with the employes of said company, either by intimidation, or by the holding of either public or private assemblages upon said property, or in any way molesting interfering with, or intimidating the employes of that company so as to induce them to abandon their work in the said mines. This injunction was served on a number of the defendants early on the morning of the 17th inst. It was also served on other of the defendants, together with an additional or supplemental and construing order, on the morning of the 18th inst. If the defendants were aware that the court had passed the decree granting the injunction mentioned, if they were aware of its terms and import, and if they then interfered with or intimidated the employes of said coal company, thereby preventing them from going to or from their work, or causing them to abandon the same, then they are guilty of the contempt charged, and should be, must be, and will be punished. The strikers had the right to quit work themselves, and they had the right to induce other miners, by peaceable means, by the persuasive force of public or private argument exerted in a lawful way, to also quit work and joint them. But it must be kept in mind that the miner who still desired to work had the same right to do so as the miner to quit work; and also it should be remembered that the owners of the mines, individual or company, had the right to operate the same, the right to employ the labor of those willing to work, the right to use the highway leading to the mines for themselves and for their employes, even as had the strikers to quit work, the miner to go on with his work, or the agitator to indulge in the right of 'free speech.' It seems from the evidence that but few of the miners employed at the Montana mines had joined the strikers. All efforts to induce them to do so had apparently failed. At this juncture a company of marching strikers, mostly from Monongah, went into camp about one mile from the Montana mines. During Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday, this company, under command of its officers, with music and banners, marched and countermarched along the county road running through the property of the Montana Coal & Coke Company. This marching was very early in the morning and in the afternoon, at times when the miners of said company were either going to or coming from...