The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1898-11-30

States. In the main these ideas accord
with public sentiment and will receive
general approval.
MIR. Gompers' letter concludes with
an elaborate argument against the ex-
tent to which the judicial injunction
has lately been carried by federal
courts in restraint Of labor. Says he;
"As layman, 1t Is not within my
province to discuss the legal rights and
the legal restrictions OF the workman,
Of the citizen; but the thought is, new
ertheless, uppermost in my mind that
it is well-established principle in law
that an injunction should never lie
when there Is another complete rem
edy at law. Nor should the people be
deprived of the exercise of their rights
by the issuance of writ never con-
templated by our system of iurispru
dence." After showing how the In
junction can be and is frequently APP
piled to worklngmen unfairly Mr..
Gompers continues:
Nor is the court injunction in its mod
ern application alcne injurious and
wrongful I'm the disputes which arise in
relations between the workers and their
| employers, but is equally a menace to re-
publican institutions. Recently a citizen
| of one of our great cities secured an in-
| junction from n judge enioining the
| municipal legislature from passing a law,
| or ordinance. 1t is alleged and generally
| admitted that the ordinance which this
| municipal legislature contemplated pass
| ing was conceived In NiCiousnCss and cor
| ruption, but it is simply referred to here
to call attention to the fact that If the or
| dinanCe was contrary to law, was viola
| tive OF rights. It could, even If passed. be
| annulled by the duly constituted courts.
1t is further submitted that il court can
| issue an injunction restraining mu-
| nicipal legislature from passing vicious
| law, il may also exercise that right un-
der misapprehension that the contem-
! plated legislation is vicious and corrupt;
| that if il is within the province of a court
| to enjoin municipal Legislature. IL Is
| within the power of n state court to issue
| an injunction enioining legislation by the
| state Legislature and within the power
| of the federal court to enioin the con-
| eress of the United states from passing
any legislation which may be deemed IN
| the interest of the people 1t may seem a
stretch of the imagination and fearful 10
| contemplate. but II the exercise of this
| function of the courts Is not coon curbed.
! we may some day witness not only COM
| gress enjoined. but the president of the
| United States served with an injunction
prohibiting him from placing his sigma
| ture to a law passed by congress. and per-
| haps brought to the bar for contempt.
| Who knows but we may some time see
! the presidency of the United States deCid-
ed upon a writ issued by a federal judge!
On this subject there is less differ
ence of opinion than might appear dur
ing political campaigns. 1t is, we be-
lieve. the judgment of large major
| ity of the intelligent and fair-minded
| people of the United States that the
| writ of injunction when applied to stop
the reasonably expected commission OF
an act of debatable legality until the
law points in dispute can be amlcably
decided is a far more defenslble exer-
else Of the judicial prerogative than tC
wait until after the mischief is done
before passing judgment upon it. 4
stitch in time saves nine; an ounce OF
prevention is worth a pound of cure
The vesting of this prerogative in a
judge presupposes, of course, that he
is a man fit to be entrusted with IT.
for proved unfitness there is already
ample remedy. on the other hand
public opinion will not uphold the abuse
of this high prerogatire or its subordin
alton to selfish or partisan ends. Those
judges who overdo their duty in this
matter may be sure that they will b,
called down; the American people vii
always be quick to resent tactics on thu
} bench offensive to their instructive con
ceptions OF fair play.