The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1902-07-25
JUDGE JACKSON EXHAUSTIVELY
EXPLAINS THE WHOLE PHI.
LoSoPHY THEREOF
"MOTHER" JONES AND
OTHERS FOUND GUILTY
Nobody Has Right to Prevent Man
: From Working for Wages He Is Sat-
isfied With-Injunctions Have Been
in Use for Thousands of Years.

| Judge Jackson rendered his decision in
| the Mother" Jones contempt cases to-
day. 1t reviewed the evidence careful
| ly. The conclusion reached was that
all the defendants had violated the In
| junction and were guilty of contempt
| of court. Sentence in the case of
Mother" Jones was postponed. In the
| case of the four foreigners, who cannot
| speak English, sentence was postponed
until the arrival Of their interpreter.
Thomas Haggerty was given ninety
days in Jail and the other five defend
| ants sixty days each. The opinion
supported the right of the courts to
use injunction and the right of labor
ers to work when they wish to do so
without interference from organized
labor or any other source. Judge jack
| son said:
| What is an injunction? Is it the ex-
ercise of an arbitrary power by the
| courts of the country, or is it power
| that has been recognized from a very
early date as one of the branches of
administrative justice? I answer this
question by affirming that the ordinary
use Of the writ of injunction is to pre-
vent wrongs and. injuries to- persons
and their property, or to reinstate the
when they have been deprived Of it. 1t
is the most efficient if not the only
remedy to stay irreparable injury and
to punish those who disobey the order
of a court granting the writ.
In Use in Roman Empire.
"In the language of the text writer's
it is prohibitory and restitutory. A
similar writ to this was in use in the
days of the Roman empire and has al
| ways been in use in England from the
foundation of the common law. 1t has
| been in use in this country since the
organization of the government. 1t is
a mistaken idea to- suppose that the
courts of this country illuse this writ.
In my long experience on the bench
| I cannot recall a single occasion when
any court, either federal of state, ever
| abused it in what is known as strike
| questions. 1t is true that our courts
have been criticised severely by per-
sons who are inimical to the use of it
and have denounced the courts for
| governing by injunction, but this crit
icism is so obviously unjust to the,
courts that it is unnecessary to enter
tain into denfense Of them.
II do not question the right of the
employees Of this company to quit work
at any time they desire to do so, unless
there is a contract relation between
| them and the employer, which should
control their right to quit. At the same
time I do not recognize the right of
an employer to coerce the employees to
continue their work when they desire
to quit.
Employees Must Not Be Coerced.
''While recognize the right of all
| laborers to combine for the purpose of
protecting all their lawful rights, I do
| not recognize the right of laborerS to
conSpire together to compel employees,
who are not dissatisfied with their
work in the mines, to lay down their
picks and to quit their work without a
just or proper reason therefor, merely
to crafty a professional set of agita-
tors, organizers and walking delegates,
who roam all over the country as
agents for some combination, who are
vampires that live and fatten on the
honest labor of the coal miners of the
country and who are busybodieS, Great
ing dissatisfaction among a class of
people who are quiet, well disposed and
who do not want to be disturbed by the
unceasing agitation of this class Of
people.
TN the case we have under consid-
Grafton these defendants are known as
professional agitators, organizers and
walking delegates. They have nothing
in common with the people who are
employed in the mines of the C1arks-
burg Fuel company. The strong arm of
the court of equity is invoked in this
case, not to suppress the right of free
speech, but to restrain and inhibit
these Defendants whose only purpose
is to bring about strikes by trying to
coerce people who are not dissatisfied
IL, Al IL
which results in inf1icting injury and
damage to, their employers as well as
the employees.
Right to Work for What He VIII.
'The right of citizen to labor for
wages that he is satisfied with is a
| right protected by law and is entitled
| to the same protection as free speech
and should be better protected than the
abuse of free speech in which the or
ganizers and agitators indulge in try
ing to produce strikes"
| The court then referred to Mother
Jones speech near the Kinnikinnick
mines, saying her utterances were the
OutgrOWth of the sentiments of those
who believe in communism and an
archy.
"The evidence showed that Mother
Jones HAD called the miners slaves;
said she did not care anything for in
functions; that it was duty to urge
the men at work to lay down their
tools and advise the men to strike;
that the judge was hireling of the
coal company, and the coal operators
were all robbers. She said in he1
speech to pay no attention to Judge
Jackson or to the court, but just make
the miners lay down their tools and
come out.
1T is true says the court, "that
Mother Jones denied some Of the
statements of the. witnesses, but hel
denial was not positive, but equiv
ocal"
The court, after reciting other acts
in violation of the injunction, conclud-
, ed: Il reach the conclusion that the
! defendants in this case who were serV-
ed with notice of injunction have vio-
, lated it, and so have treated with con.
) tempt the order of this court"
: Judgment Suspended.
: Judge Jackson suspended judgment
! in the case of Mother" Jones. He
stated that she had been found guilty
of contempt, "but as she was posing az
a martyr he would not send her to jai
or allow her to force her way int
jail" He said he would hold convic.
ton over her. and if she again violated
: the injunction he would sentence hel
I heavily. Thomas Haggerty got ninety
Cnn+innAd on Third PAGE.