Frank v. Denver & R. G. Ry. Co.
Opinion of the Court
In reference to this matter of the employes of the Denver & Rio Grande, certain gentlemen came before me the other day, with a petition, and I set a day for the hearing of the matters there complained of, which was the day before yesterday. On that day the parties on both sides appeared, and we had quite an amount of testimony taken down, which has been copied by the stenographer. At the same time tho complaining parties filed a further statement as to matters to which they wanted to call the attention of the court. I have those two statements before me. I will not take time to read them in detail; but they include substantially these matters. They claim, in tlie first place, that the wages of the apprentices are not reasonably advanced. Then, in the second place, they say that men em
Here are 10 young men who came forward to complain that their wages have not been reasonably advanced. They were young men, ■ all the way from 16 to 22 or 23 years of age. Only one of them, according to his own statement, during the time that he had been working for the company, has had his wages reduced, and he was a boy only 16 years of age, whose wages were reduced from $1.50 to $1.25 a day, and a boy who, very obviously, was hot overly strong. That was the only case of reduction. There was one other whose wages had remained what they were when he started; but the other eight had had a steady increase of wages. I do not mean regularly so much every month or every six months, but their wages had been increased. I asked two or three of them who seemed to be very sore, whether they had tried to get work or higher wages elsewhere. They had not, and did not know whether they could, yet their wages had been increased, while during the past year or more this road has been defaulting in all its interests. It has cost over $30,000,000 to build this road of 1,300 miles, and the men whose money built it, the men who put -their money into the building of this road so as to furnish work and support to-day to the 3,000 or 4,000 men employed along its line, have not during the last yéar received a dollar. Now, is it not fair and but common justice that they should have something, and that the earnings should not be all turned in one direction to lift up the wages of laboring men ? It is not now as it was three or four years ago, when this road was doing a large business and paying interest, when it could afford to increase wages, for its earnings have dropped from 1882 to 1884 over $800,000.
There is not one of you that if you started a business of your own would not do just as the officers of this company are doing. You start a little establishment for manufacturing, or anything of that kind, and have four of five men working for you. The times get hard and you cannot pay your debts. What would every one of you say to the men who were working for you ? You would not say, “ Well^now, I will go and increase your wages;” but, “My business is poor, I am making nothing; I am not paying my debts, and I cannot pay you any more wages;” and very likely in many cases you might say, “I will
I will not go over the matter that I went over the other day, where I said to you that the employe was at liberty and the employer was also at liberty. Whatever laws may exist by and by, to-day, in this country, the employe is free to go or free to stay, and the employer is free to discharge him. That is the law in this country. The courts do not make the laws, but take them as the legislators make them. The parties may bind themselves by contract, but where they have made no contract for a stipulated time, the employe may leave when he wishes and the employer may discharge when he pleases. So that if it had been simply a mere naked question of law that you put to me in regard to this matter, I would have to say to you, in the fewest words, that the law is that the employer can discharge, and that in regard to the matter of wages and discharge the management of this road had simply exercised their legal rights; but I did not care to put it upon that simple proposition of law. I wanted to talk about the particular matters in which you felt you were wronged. I have no more to say in reference to this matter of wages. And the same thing applies to the extra work in the freight department. It is true, the witnesses differ a little; some thought they were never detained
But there is back of that another thing. A railroad, ■ of all business in the world, has to be prompt in all things. Their customers are the most urgent of all men. If any man goes to ship a bill of goods he wants to ship it right away; and if he has an invoice of a bill of goods coming from the east, he wants those goods delivered the moment they come. If a railroad manager said, “ Well, there is no pressure, let it go over until to-morrow or next day, ” he would be receiving constant complaints; the business of the road would be lost. If a man wants things shipped, he will not have dealings with a road unless it is attentive and prompt. In courts there'are many lawsuits'tried where roads are sued -for damages, and we have to lay down the rule every time that the highest diligence and the utmost care are required on the part of these railroads. If there is neglect of any-kind,—the slightest neglect or delay,—the road has to respond for it; and it is one of those urgent, pressing, imperative occupations which inevitably and universally require that those in charge shall push things, shall see that the work is gotten out of the way as quickly and rapidly as possible, and that the utmost care is paid in every department of the business. If the officers did not do this they would be brought up here day after day with a suit for damages, or a suit on account of delay in transportation, or something of that kind.
There is no occupation ;n the country to-day where there is more of what you may call almost a military necessity, and where there is any more imperative demand for that quick, pushing, sharp way of doing things. You and I, when we travel, we want everything provided for us and in the best condition. If we do not have it, we complain. If we ship goods, we want those goods delivered in promptness, in the quickest time. If they are not, we make complaint. And so these men that are managers and officers of a railroad corporation have got to face all the while this demand of the traveling and shipping
The other matter which I have considered is of a different nature, and that is in regard to Mr. McClellan. The employes under him presented a petition to Mr. Sample first, I believe, and afterwards to Mr. Jackson, the receiver, and they there represented that Mr. McClellan was overbearing and profane; and those employes have raa de the same complaint here. They say that Mr. Jackson kept the petition a few days, and then reported that he had examined, and did not think the charges were sustained; but admitting that Mr. McClellan might swear occasionally; that in so doing he was not doing an uncommon thing, and that he (Mr. Jackson) did not find enough reason for making the discharge. Now, they bring the same matter up here. I .could very fairly say, and I presume a great many judges would, that we have appointed a receiver in whom we have confidence, and that when these employes went to him, and he took the matter up and examined it, and was satisfied that Mr. McClellan was an efficient, and not a tyrannical and unfit, foreman, that his decision should be final, because he is in a position where he can get at all the facts. But I did not care to put it upon that ground, and so I told these gentlemen to make a statement of all their complaints, which they did, and then 1 heard
If you take out the testimony of Mr. Culmsee and one or two other witnesses, the evidence of the balance of the employes who were examined would show that Mr. McClellan did not swear half as much as perhaps nine-tenths of the people right here in this court-room. I do not mean to approve of swearing. I do not mean to indorse it at all; but I have seen some very good men who would swear most terribly. I could' not but think, when I heard those gentlemen tell their stories, that Mr. McClellan was not very profane; and while he doubtless does swear occasionally, it is not very common, or else some of these men other than Mr. Culmsee and one or two others would have recollections thereof. Outside of three witnesses, the balance of them either say they never heard him swear, or that they remember only one or two instances, and some of them have been there for two or three years. They say he is tyrannical. I guess he is a driving man. I take it from the testimony on both sides that he is a pushing man. He says himself he tries to get a full day’s work, and it is very natural. I can believe, without any hesitation, that a man who is an earnest, pushing man, trying to get all the work that he can out of a large body of men, sometimes makes mistakes. I never saw a man that did not do it; and I have'no doubt that it is true, as some of you feel, that at times he may have been, in this or that matter, unjust, so far as you were personally concerned, and that you had really done all that you ought to have done. But such mistakes as that will always happen where a man is earnest, energetic, and driving. If he is a fair man, if he is a man that tries to do right towards his employer and the employe, although he may be one of those driving, resolute, pushing men, he is not a man to be discharged from any occupation. Upon the testimony of these complaining witnesses I could not but think that that was 'all that could be fairly said against him. On the other hand, there were Mr. Jackson, Mr. Sample, and Mr. Groves, the last two being so situated that they must know the facts of his conduct and the character of the man/ and two or three foremen who were about there, who all testified that he was an efficient, faithful, honest, fair man. Ought he to have been removed? I think not.
It is fair to say that there is a matter back of that. Prior to this' petition, prior to the discharge of any of those 10 men, it seems there was some trouble with an employe of the name of Ash, who was discharged, and a committee called on the officers in regard to the mat
I may have omitted some minor matters, but I believe I have spoken all that I desire about those grievances. I am frank to say to you that no one of them impressed me or arrested my attention, except that in reference to Mr. McClellan. So I made inquiries of all the men that were hero, and heard Mr. Sample and the officers of the road who were likely to know of Mr. McClellan’s efficiency; I had them subpoenaed to come, and they came, and I heard their testi
Of course, you know from what I have said that I think you have made a mistake. I think you did not realize the fact that that road had to reduce its working force to get itself out of debt and out of the courts. I think, also, that some of you are embittered against the road; that you feel hostile to it. That cropped out in the testimony before me from several witnesses. Men whose feelings towards the road are vicious, who feel ugly towards it, such men it would not be safe for the road to have. I do not suppose that all of the employes came before me, but only such as were chosen or selected, or desired to come; and of those who came, some seem to me to be very fair men. Well, I think they made a mistake, yet I do not think they were acting viciously. I do not think to-day tha. they feel ugly towards the road; I think they would be perfectly loyal to its interests; I think they are fair men. I do not know how much additional force, if any, the officers need in the shops and about the depot. If they do not need any, why that is the end of it. If they can get along with what laboring force they have, they ought to do it until they get out of debt, or at least until they have paid some of their indebtedness.
But I want to say to Mr. Jackson, right here, that I do not think you ought to make, I should not want you to make, the mere going out of these employes from work on the fourth of May a reason for not re-employing them. I do not know how many men you may need,—I do not know how many left, for that matter,—but I think it would be the thing for to you do, so far as you need men, instead of going away from here, sending elsewhere'for laborers or mechanics,—I know you can get them all over the land; there are pienty who would like to come, for work is scarce,—instead of doing that, I think what • you ought to do is, so far as you need mechanics and laborers of any kind, to take such of these as are the fairest and best men; men who have not been ugly or vicious. Of course, there are men—I saw it right here on the witness stand, and I saw it upstairs—that it would not be safe to take into your employment. I do not know those men; I cannot make any selection. The court has placed you in charge of that property. You have the responsibility, and you must make the selection. You have to employ men, and there is a responsibility resting upon you for employing good men. Legally, the responsibility is with you; the court- places it with you; and, in the nature of things, the court could not make any selection. So the responsibility of selection is cast upon you.
But I do want to say, and I want to say it to you in the presence of these men, that I do not want to see you shut the door down absolutely, and say: “I won’t take any man that went out on the fourth
1 do not know that I can say anything more in reference to this matter. Ever since I have been here, for eight days, I have had the troubles of this strike, and of the employes of the road, before me in one shape or another. It has been an embarrassing, difficult question. I have tried to make it plain to you that the laws must be enforced, that the employer is a free man, as well as the employe; that there are rights which the law guaranties, and will enforce, and I have had to punish some who I thought were intimidating, trying to coerce the management of the road. I did it reluctantly; 1 did it firmly. And I can only say in conclusion, for I suppose this is the last of this matter that will come before me, I have tried to be perfectly fair and frank with you all. You are all comparative strangers to me. I never was here holding court but once before. The attorneys and citizens here are all comparative strangers. I had no feeling one way or the other. I heard every man that had anything to say, and I have tried to decide each matter as under the law it ought to have been decided.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.