Watertown republican. [volume] (Watertown, Wis.) 1860-1906, 1900-02-20
CURB FEDERAL COURTS.
Efforts to Prevent Thsm from Is
suing lnjunetiens.
MANY DIFFICULTIES,
Any Act of Congress WsuId Preba bly,
be Declared Void by the
Supreme Court.


prints dispatch from its Washington
correspondent stating that skillful attor-
neys have been engaged for several
weeks in drafting law for the Ameri-
can Federation Of Labor 10 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
frsm time to time to exclude organized
Ia Dor from the jurisdiction Of the courts
but no bill yet drafted has commanded
the support and approval Of any commit
tee in Congress.
took the matter up last fall and employed
some Of the ablest attorneys IN the coun-
try. The result Of their Work, IN the
form of bill, has been submitted to the
executive council of the federation, con
ssting OF President Gompers, Nlce-Eresl-
dents Mcclure, James Duncan, James
O'COnnell, John Mitchell, Max Morris
and Thomas |. Kidd, Treasurer John b.
Lennon and Secretary Frank Morrison,
which now has it under consideration.
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 Oh the
part of the lawyers in Congress whether
it is possible for human ingenuity to de-
wise q method by which the labor unions
may be made exempt from the action OF
the civil courts. Representative Loriner
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 a bill himself to restrict the use
OF injunctiOns, admits that he has been
unable to draft a measure that was
werth the paper it was written on.
When | prepared my blacklist bill
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 l
could reach. | was convinced that my
injunction provision was worthless and
therefore struck it from the bill, and
believe that nothing so far suggested
would be sustained by the courts should
Congress enact any Of the numerous
accomplished in some way, but just how
is mystery to me. | have not met the
lawyer who could draft n measure that
would in his own judgment be constitu-
tional."
Senator Quarles' Opisier.
''The federal court is the creature of
and derives all its jurisdiction from the
constitution and the federal statutes
remarked Senator Quarles of Wisconsin,
one OF the ablest lawyers in Congress.
$50 far as Jurisdiction conferred by
the constitution it is put beyond the
power OF Congress, but so far as it de-
pends upon statutes its authority can be
cd chon taE oD Of no
pleasure Of Congress / have great doubt
whether the federal courts could be 80
crippled by congressional enactment as
to deprive them of the equitable jurisdic
ton which underles the granting OF an
injunction.
1.-The constitution gave us three CO.
ordinate branches of government-the
legislative, executive and iudicial-each
to a 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-
stituton as it would be for the courts
to deny that Congress had certain rights
conferred i'll the constitution. II is u
part Of the old. well-established and long
recognized jurisdiction of the courts TO
issue lnJunctions, and it cannot be i'm
paired by Congress. The structure OF our
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-
piorable condition would result. One is
check upon the other.
Beyoaa the Power of Congress.
SHOULD we enact a law restricting the
exercise of iHjunctions by federal courts"
continued Senator Quarles, Il am posi-
tive that the Supreme court, zealously
guarding the rights of the judicial
branch, would declare il unconstitutional.
Congress would certainly resent interior
ence by federal courts in the discharge
of its duties as defined in the constitu-
tion and the courts as Zealously guard
their prerogatives. AS | have stated, l
believe it is beyond the power Of Con-
gress to take away or impair the right of
injunction by federal courts, and l would
be surprised if any scheme can be sug-
gested that will result in legislation in
that direction that would stand inspec-
ton. 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 i1junc-
tions, but even then do not see how the
object can be accomplished"