The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1902-07-26
INJUNCTIoNs AND CONTEMPT OF
COURT.

United States Judge Jackson, of West
Virginia. has probably acted wisely in
resembling his order for the arrest of Sec
rotary Wilson. of the United Mine Work
ers. The charge against Wilson on which
the order of arrest was issued was con-
tempt of court in making speeches in West
Virginia criticising the action of courts in
general and Judge Jackson in particular
for enjoining and restraining labor leaders
and workingmen from doing certain things
to make strikes successful In such cases
as this the exact phraseology of a restrain
ing order is important, and as that or
Judge Jackson is not at hand the Journal
is unable to say whether Wilson's speeches
violated the letter of the order or not The
judge must have thought they did or he
would not have issued the order for VIII
sons arrest. but the resembling of the or
der indicates that he may nave been in
doubt that point. 1t will be observed
he has not revoked the sentence of i'm
prisonment imposed on five or six other
labor leaders who were charged with vio-
lating the same order Their offense may
have been more clear than that Of Wilson,
or other considerations may have induced
the court to rescind the order for the lat
ter's arrest. II Wilson's speeches were
correctly reported they were not inham-
matory. although somewhat caustic, and as
they did not advise. encourage or suggest
any interference with the rights of others
ii is difficult 10 see how they could be
construed as violating an order OF the
court issued for the sole purpose of pro-
tecting such rights. Courts may and ought
to issue injunctions for the protection Of
property and individual rights from threat
ened injury, but there is a rational limit
TO their power in this regard. Judge Jack
sons own definition Of the writ shows
there is such limit. He says: THE ordi-
nary use OF the writ of injunction is to
prevent wrong and injuries to persons and
their property, or 10 reinstate the right Of
persons to their property when they have
been deprived OF it," Under this definition
an injunction can only go to tho extent of
protecting the property or rights of those
in whose favor it is issued. and no act or
speech is a violation OF the injunction I'M
less il attacks. Injuries or threatens such
property rights. AS Mr. Wilson's
speeches were couched in very general
terms and did not advise or suggest any
attack upon or interference with the prop
erty or rights of others the Journal is I'M
able TO see how they could be construed
as contempt OF court. The other defend
ants. five or six in number, who were SEN
fenced TO imprisonment. may have commit
ted acts. for all the Journal knows, that
were clearly In contempt OF court for 1t
must not be forgotten that IL is the right
and duty OF courts TO issue injunctions
whenever II is necessary for the protection
Of private property or rights, and that they
have the power and the right 10 punish vio-
lation OF their orders The writ OF injunc-
ton has been called THE strong arm of
equity" and violation OF il is rightly treat
ed as contempt Of the court granting the
writ. And IL is in the discretion OF the
court 10 decide what constitutes a viola
ton of its order and TO hx the penalty
therefor. generally fine and Imprisonment.