The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1906-12-15
samuel Gompers and John Mitchell.

samuel Gompers and John Mitchell.
We note with interest the continued
disapproval on the part Of Messrs. SAM
uEL GoMPERs and JOHN MITCHELL OF
what they are pleased 10 describe as
government by Injunction" Those pas
sionate advocates of human liberty both
appeared at the fifth annual meeting
OF the National Civic Federation. last
Wednesday, and both declared them
selves in no measured terms as deadly
foes Of the injunction. Mr.. JoHy MITCH
ELL. indeed, went 40 far as TO cay that
under circumstances OF peculiar provo
cation he would trample the injunction
under foot as a tyrannical interference
with his constitutional rights.
OF course, the seeming inconsistency
Of this attitude, assumed by gentlemen
who have consecrated themselves 10
freedom in its broadcast and its noblest
forms, ia susceptible OF explanation.
Specifically considered, however, it will
astonish the unenlightened TO hear
Messrs. GoMPERs and MITCHELL de-
nouncing with such bitterness the only
remaining protection OF the individual
in pursuit Of the privileges guaranteed
him by our political and social institu-
tons. The appearance is deceptive, no
doubt, but the ordinary citizen sees in
the Injunction merely an effort by the
Government TO save the lives OF men
who seek TO support themselves and
their families through the medium OF
honest toll. We know how it grieves
Messrs. GoMPERs and MITCHELL TO hear
Of workingmen beaten, MANNED, even
| murdered because they accept employ
ment. We know it because they always
! proclaim their sorrow On those barbarous
occasions. Their hearts are always lacer-
ated in such caSes, for surely there can
be no more brutal tyranny than that
which would deny the poor mans right
TO labor for his daily bread. Neverthe-
less, only the inspired few who enjoy
communion with Messrs. GoMPERs and
| MITCHELL are able to perceive in the
injunction anything more or less than
the agency Of that liberty Of which they
profess to be the appointed and peculiar
prophets. Some day, we feel sure. these
errors will be dispelled. For the mo-
ment, however, they possess US with re-
markable tenacity.
It is a great pity that Messrs. GOMPERs
and MITCHELL did not find time TO explain
to their distinguished audience the exact
manner in which and the precise extent
to which injunction" interferes with the
human liberty they extol 30 eloquently
and a~postrophize with such voluble and
more or less convincing v~ociferation
The ignorant multitude sees in il only
an attempted safeguard, too often inef-
fectual. OF the honest weak az against
the murderous and ruffian strong. 1t
amounts, or seems TO amount, merely
TO an inhibition OF lawlessness. Its
ostensible function IL TO prevent the
a~ssemblage Of rufians and malefactors
at points where n~on-union workmen
may be assaulted, mutilated, wen killed
outright under circumstances which for
bid the hope Of identifying and punish
ing the criminals. Why, then, should
Messrs. GoMPERs and MITCHELL de-
nounce it with such penetrating viru-
lence? They always claim that these
abominable enormities are committed by
"sympathizers," whose activities they
honestly deplOre. II that be true, as OF
course II must be, why do they not Co
operate with the agents Of humane and
civilized government in, the effort TO
eliminate them?
1t il inconceivable that gentlemen Of
such high character and altrIistic pre-
tensions are demanding liberty and pro-
lection only for those w~orkingmen who
pay tribute to the unions, and incident
ally 10 their salaries and perquisites.