The Washburn times. [volume] (Washburn, Wis.) 1896-1976, 1900-02-21
CURB FEDERAL COURTS.
Efforts to Prevent Them from Is
suing Injunetions.-
MANY DIFFICULTIES.
Any Act of Congress Would Probably
be Declared Void by the
Supreme Court.

liz, ICD. LO.-lno feCOrO
prints dispatch from it's Washington
correspondent stating that skillful attor-
neys have been engaged for several
weeks in drafting law for the Amer-
can Federation Of Labor to be introduced
into Congress to prevent future inter-
ference by United States courts with
strikes and other labor movements. The
purpose of the proposed law is to prevent
employers Of LABOR from appealing to the
courts for injunctiOns and other orders
for their own protection and the pro-
lection Of nonunion labor which they may
employ. A number of bills have been
introduced in both houses of Congress
from time to time to exclude organized
abor from the jurisdiction Of the courts,
but no bill yet drafted has commanded
the support and approval Of any commit
tee in Congress.
The American Federation Of Labor
took the matter up last fall and employed
some Of the ablest attorneys in the. coun-
try. The result of their work, III the
form Of a bill, has been submitted to the
executive council of the federation, CON
sisting of President Gompers, Vice-Presi-
dents Mcclure, James Duncan, James
OConnell, John Mitchell, Max Morris
and Thomas /. Kidd, Treasurer John y.
Lennon and Secretary Frank Morrison,
AS soon as it receives the committees
approval it will be introduced In both
houses of Congress and is awaited with
great interest by labor men.
Grave Doubts Entertained.
There is almost universal doubt on the
part of the lawyers in Congress whether
it is possible for human ingenuity to de
wise a method by which the labor unions
may be made exempt from the action OF
the civil courts. Representative Lorlmer
of Chicago, a member OF the House COM
mittee on labor who has been in Congress
several terms and has always taken
deep interest in the subject, having
framed bill himself to restrict the use
of injunctions, admits that he has been
unable to draft a measure that was
worth the paper it was written ON.
when | prepared nay blacklist bill L
added a section TO forbid injunctions by
federal courts" said Mr.. Lorimer today,
land being deeply in earnest took the
trouble to counsel with every lawyer J.
could reach. l was convinced that my
injunction provision was worthless and
therefore struck it from the bill, and l
believe that nothing so far suggested
would be sustained by the courts should
Congress enact any of the numerous
measures into law. The object may be
accomplished in some way, but just how
is a mystery to me. | have not met the
u
would in his own judgment be constitu-
tional.'
Senator Ouarles' Opinion.
''The federal court is the creature of
and derives all it's jurisdiction from the
constitution and the federal statutes
remarked Senator QuarleS of Wisconsin,
one Of the ablest lawyers in Congress.
$50 far as jurisdiction is conferred by
the constitution it is put beyond the
0f hut foy do
ponds upon statutes its authority can be
modified changed or taken away at the
pleasure of Congress. l have great doubt
whether the federal courts could be so
crippled by congressional enactment as
to deprive them of the equitable jurisdic-
ton which underlieS the granting of an
injunction.
THE constitution gave us three CO.
ordinate branches of government--the
legislative, executive and judicial-each
to certain degree independent Of the
other, with well-defned jurisdiction and
authority. 1t would be as impossible for
Congress to take away from the courts
any of the rights conferred in the con-
stitution as it would be for the courts
to deny that Congress had certain rights
conferred in the constitution. 1t is
part of the cid, well-establish and long
recognized jurisdiction of the courts to
issue injunctions, and it cannot be inn
government is such that the legislative
must not infringe upon the judicial, the
integrity of each of the coordinate
branches must be preserved. and if the
legislative branch had the right to in
fringe upon, narrow, limit or weaken
the authority of the judicial branch de-
plorable condition would result. One is
check upon the other.
Beyond the Power of Congress.
Should we enact a law restricting the
exercise of injunctions by federal courts"
continued Senator Quarles, Il am posi-
tive that the Supreme court, zealously
guarding the rights of the judicial
branch, would declare it unconstitutional
Congress would certainly resent interfer-
ence by federal courts in the discharge
of its duties as defined in the constitu-
ton. and the courts as Zealously guard
their prerogatiyes. AS | have stated, I
believe it is beyond the power of Con-
gress to take away or impair the right of
injunction by federal courts, and / would
be surprised if any scheme can be sug-
gested that will result in legislation in
that direction that would stand inspec-
tlon. The right to enjoin cannot be in
terfered with to the extent of curtailing
contempts committed in the presence of
the court. Amendments may be suggest
ed to existing statutes relating to injunc-
tons, but even then | do not see how the
OBJECT can be ACCOMPLISHED.