The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1903-01-22

The president and the vice president of
the Mine Workers both devoted consider
able space In their annual addresses to
denouncing government by injunction"
President Mitchell declared that it is "a
clear violation of the right of trial by
jury" that 'it is not only hostile to or
ganized labor, but it Is hostile to consti-
tutional liberty" that the reasons given
for issuing them in labor cases "are al
ways misleading and generally false and
that "the whole system of government by
capitalists for democratic institutions"
Vice President Lewis followed much the
same line of denunciation, as, of course,
the resolutions adopted by the convention
will. The denunciation was directed
against the various injunctions issued by
Federal Courts prohibiting pcketing,
marching, coercion and other forms of
intimidation used by strikers to prevent
employers and owners from operating their
works. In some instances those who have
violated these injunctions have been ar
rested, fined and put in Jail.
1t Is NATURAL lidl tLcSc proceedings
should seem harsh and oppressive to those
against whom they are directed. but it is
mistake to suppose that they declare
any new principle or involve any new de-
parture in law. Government by injunc-
ton has not been devised for the purpose
of depressing or prosecuting labor. AS a
principle of law 1T is older than any exist
ing labor organization, and 1t has been
exercised thousands of times by thou
sands of courts in restraint of wrongdoing
or for the protection of the rights of per-
sons and property. 1t will never be abol-
| ished and never should be. AS n prin-
| ciple of law it is essential for the protec-
ton of every individual and every inter-
| est. as important to the poor man as it
is to the rich man. 1t may even be in
voked by labor against capital and by
the people against corporations. Only a
| few days ago the attorney general of
| Illinois expressed his opinion that it could
be used effNctually in the enforcement of
antitrust laws by enjoining corporations
| from combining to restrict production or
control prices. The writ of injunction is
about as old as trial by jury, which Mr..
/ Mitchell said IL violated, and one is as
| little likely to be abolished as the other
| 1t is possible that some of the restraining
orders which have been issued by the
| courts may, through looseness of express
sion, have pushed the doctrine too far,
but IL so they can be rectiied. The way
to do that would be by an appeal to the
| Supreme Court and not by denouncins
government by injunction. Mr.. Mitchell
intimated that this might be done He
said the national executive board of the
United Miners had appropriated si0,OoC
from the funds In the national treasury
TO be used In carrying to the United States
Supreme Court, IL necessary, an appeal
from the decision of Judge Jackson. OF
West Virginia. That would be legiti-
mate mode OF proceeding. and should be
carried out. 1t would be well to have ar
authoritative exposition of the law of in
junction by the highest court of the land
and a definition OF the powers OF the
courts in applying and enforcing it, Such
an exposition might clear away much OF
the present MISUNDERSTANDING on the sub
Ject. Mr.. Mitchell Is an able man, ant
the Journal believes him to b<
thoroughly honest. There are other abl<