The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1897-09-22

II was not to be expected that Judge
Jackson would criticise or reverse him
self. The courts are not in the haplt
of doing that, and the criticisms to
which Judge Jackson and other mem
bers of the federal judiciary have been
subjected were in many cases so eX-
IRENE and unwarranted as to drive
them to a position as radical at the
onnosite extreme. This seems to be
Judge Jackson's attitude in granting
an order to make his injunction per-
petual, and in explaining and defend
ing his position. He ignores the neces-
sary and ultimate effect of an lndis-
criminate use of the power of injunc-
ton, just as the striker who wishes to
prevent his fellow from working, by
the use of violence, forgets that to
tolerate this would be to completely
destroy eventually his own liberty We
have no doubt that Judge Jackson's
intention in issuing his injunction was
to maintain the law, to defend the
rights of private property and to pre-
serve public order. What he did not
see. and what he does not yet see ap-
parently, is that even these laudable
purposes do not justify a stretch OF
judicial power which may be and will
be turned, in other hands and under
great provocation, to the ends of in
Justice, and the destruction eOf Ameri-
can liberty.
Thus, Judge jackson bases his de-
Tense upon the proposition that the
property of the Monongah Coal COM
pany was endangered by strikers, and
that it was the business of the court
to prevent the threatened injury. His
argument is unnecessary, because no
one denied his proposition. That there
is a legitimate and proper use of the
power of injunction is too plain fact
to be discussed by Judge Jackson or
anybody else. That it is the right and
duty Of the courts to interfere where
personal violence is threatened, or
where the destruction of property is
contemplated, is as he says, prin-
ciple of law with centuries behind it.
We saw in the Chicago riots the le-
ultimate use of the injunction, and ali
right thinking people applauded the
federal courts for their position, and the
federal authorities for backing them
up in it. The dividing line is to be
drawn between injunctions against &C
tual injury to life or property, and
.. against the mere supposition that such
injury is contemplated by certain in
writ to everybody who runs to it fol
help, based on the pure assumption
that somebody meditates an un-
lawful act, ordering him to abstain
from entertaining certain intentions
which no other person than himself
can fathom, then the court is master
not merely of human action, but OF
human speech and thought as we'll. Il
is lust as much to be censured wher
it goes beyond the obvious line of its
duty and prerogative as the striker is
when he goes beyond his
Now the apologists Of Judge Jack
son have busted themselves with as
sorting that all that he did was t.
prohibit assault upon person or prop
erty, and to enjoin against trespass
. If he had done only that it would be
different although even such orders
should be issued with great caution al
a time when two contending parties
are struggling for the immense ad-
vantage of the moral support of the
courts. Referring again to the actua
text of Judge Jackson's injunction, we
find that 1.-The defendants are further
restrained from assembling in the
paths, approaches and roads of suct
property leading TO and from their
homes and residences to the mines
They are restrained from lin any wis.
interfering with the employees of sait
company in their mining operations
either within the mines or in passing