Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1900-10-07
STYLE 325.

under such circumstances aroused the
greatest public Indignation, and it's le-
Sality was seriously questioned by the
legal profession. 1t was an extension of
the scope or injunctionS never before
heard of. The virtual attempt TO COM
pei employees to work against their
VIII and to refuse them the right of
quitting whenever they pleased. and of
advising their co-laborers TO quit, was
an unprecedented exercise of judicial
power which could not well be justified
simply because the employer happened
in this instance to be an officer of the
court engaged in the operation of n
railroad. The injunction was undoubt-
eddy an interference with the personal
rights and liberties of the employees
1t was an effort TO coerce men to work
for another against their will. No pub
lie eXiSency. no Inconvenience to the
public involved in the suspension of
travel and no legal fictions of whatever
nature. were sufficient TO authorize such
an extraordinary exercise of judicial
iniupctlon--AlaS- hSe--
quently modified or set aside by a
higher court, in its Objectionable fea-
lures. Notwithstanding the strenuous
contention on the argument that the
power TO grant such an injunction adj
hered in the Federal judges. The in
cident engendered much ili-ieelng and
aroused great apprehension on the part
vi ltbi psiu tlllNlbNctS til1OuEnOUl the
country, as vast lines of important
railways were then under the control
of receivers.
AGAINST EMPLOYEES.
About this same period several act
ual strikes occurred on railroads: many
injunciionS were issued against former
employees To prevent apprehendcd in
1uries to railroad property, and there
were several important prosecutions in
G tod nt,,c.t
alleged violations of injunction orders
many convictions were had therefor.
ana impriSonncnts and fine were sum
marily imposed as punishmcntS. on the
complaint of railroad corporations
These proceedings. by reason of their
number their severity and arbitrary
character. provoked IL general criticism
OF inc methods of procedure involved
IN cases OF punishment for contempt in
judicial proceedings, especially In the
Federal Courts, and disclosed some in
hercnt defects in the System which mr.
gently demanded legislative remedy.
the rights and liberties of citizens in
such cases might hc better protected.
III should be stated that in such pros
ecutlons the employees or other parties
proceeded against are usually poor
men, having little knowledge OF law
uhanle to furnish bail for their appear
ahce or TO employ able counsel: and
me charges against them which they
are required to meet are presented by
"liu'tsitS made ordinarily by paid and
9Nllen detectives who are strangers
employed by The complaining corpora
non. and there is no opportunity on
inc part of the accused TO be confront
60 WIN the witnesses to ascertain the
truth OF their statements. nor to have
a jury of their countrymen PASS unon
.htlr suiit or innocence. but they must
submit to be tried on ex parte afIida
Wis, which they are at liberty to con
tTadict by counter afiidavits and not
tenure of Office is for life and whose
utcislon III such cases is ordinarily
conclusive and not appealabe: and
me punishmcnt for which offense is
not iiXed by law. but rests solely in the
discretion of the single judge. This
was ard is the law to-day. These pros
ecutions called public attention to the
manifest injustice OF inadcuuacy of