The Chipley banner. (Chipley, Washington County, Fla.) 1893-1943, 1897-09-25
The Injunctions of courts and
Labor.

When our republic took Its place among
y the nations Of the world IL was confident
IL predicted that the Government OF the
many must result In anarchy-that only
n strong hand or an educated aristocracy
could restrain the lawless, protect the
weak and preserve peace and order. The
lessons of history were confidently quoted
TO support this view, and not the least Of
the difficulties that the fathers had to
overcome in the beginning grew out OF
the fact that the doubters were strong in
numbers as well as influence.
To meet these objections, Jefferson
pointed to the fact that we should have a
new power for peace aed order-one I'M
known to former republics, In our written
law as applied by an Independent judlci-
airy, and avowed his belief that such pro-
vision would correct all Of the evils that
had formerly attended the rule Of major
tiles or the government Of the people.
The history of the United States attests
the'wlsdom of the statesmen who trusted
passion or prejudice, regardless of popu-
ular feeling or political expediency, our
courts have declared tine law and 1t has
been obeyed. The nation has enforced 1t,
and the lassless have submitted. True,
there have been exceptions, but only
enough to prove the rule.
This being true, who do so many jour-
nails denounce what they call govern
ment by Injunction" Never in one in
stance have the courts attempted to leg
islate-they have proclaimed the law and
1t must be Obeyed. The injunction" Of
a court is merely declaration. after hear
ing both sides, of the application Of exist
ing law to particular case. How can
this, In any sense, be called government"
or the exercise of any function thereof?
Such confusion OF terms and misuse of
the language is misleading, but cannot
long deceive the people.
But the chief objection to injunctions
is drawn from their application to the
labor problem. While the sympathies of
every American naturally go out to the
laborer. the time has not yet come to free
him from the restraint Of the law, and he
must prove that injunctions are illegal be
fore he will have just ground for complaint
The courts can occupy themselves with
but one question; What is the law? AS
to whether the law be good or bad, the
courts have nothing to do. They cannot
make the law, they can only interpret it
and apply it to the case before them.
A number of journals declared that the
courts governed by injunction when
they restrained the strikers in Chicago
from stopping the mails. They did not
order any one to work or to stop work
they simply decided that the strikers
could not forcibly interfere with the free
passage of trains that carried the mails
and we our only means for continuing our
interstate commerce. The strikers refus-
to work. as they had right to do. but
when they sought by force to prevent 9th
er men from taking the trains out, the
courts ordered them to keep the peace.
Was that wrong?
So in Pennsylvania now. The strikers
declared that they would not work, and
the courts did not interfere with their
liberties. But when they declared that
other men must stop work, too, the courts
enjoined them to desst from violence or
threats or intimidation, and commanded
all officials to take what measures should
be necessary to preserve respect for the
law. When owners Of private property
objected to its occupation by the striking
miners, the courts issued an injunction
against such usurpation of private rights.
When the miners repeatedly kept posses
sion of the highways to the exclusion of
Others, the courts forbade such infringe
ment of the right Of every citizen 10 the
free use Of public property. When the
miners assembled at the mouth of coal
pits in such manner as to obstruct labor,
----.-. ==.n-s--.s.sz.E.z.zz.s1 s-<=--zz