The news-democrat. (Providence, R.I.) 1906-1909, 1906-12-04

| the security OF their property depends.
| IL was committed on behalf OF a great
| railroad corporation. which, like other
| railroad corporations, has received
gratuitously from the state large and
| valuable privileges for the public's con-
venience and its own. which performs
quasi public functions and which is
charged with the highest obligation in
the transaction OF its business 10 treat
the citizens OF this country alike. and
not 10 carry on it's business with un-
just determinations between different
citizens or different classes OF citi-
zens,
This crime In it's nature is one
usually done with secrecy, and proof
Of which IL is very difficult TO obtain.
| The interstate commerce act was past
! In 1887. nearly twenty years ago. Ever
| since that time complaints of the grant
ing OF rebates by railroads has been
common, urgent. and insistent and al
tho the congress has repeatedly past
legislation endeavoring TO put stop
10 this evil, the difficulty OF obtaining
proof upon which TO bring prosecution
IN these cases is so great that this
is the first case that has ever been
brought in this court, and, as / am in
formed this case and one recently
brought i'm Philadelphia are the only
cases that have ever been brought in
the eastern part OF this country. In
fact, but few cases OF this kind have
ever been brought in this country east
or west Now, under these circum-
stances, I AIN forced To the conclusion.
in case In which the proof is so clear
and the facts are so 1agrant Ii is the
duty OF the court To fix a penalty which
shall I'm some degree be commensurate
with the gravity of the offense. As
between the two defendants in my
opinion, the principal penalty should
be imposed on the corporation. The
traffic manager In this case. pre-
sumably, acted without any advantage
TO himself and without any interest
in the transaction, either by the direct
authority or in accordance with what
he understood to be the policy or the
wishes OF his employer.
THE sentence OF this court I'm this
case is, that the defendant Pomeroy,
for each OF the six offenses upon which
he has been convicted, be fined the
sum of $1,000, making six fines, amount
ing i'm all TO the sum OF $4,000; and the
defendant. the New York Central and
Hudson River Railroad company, for
each OF the six crimes OF which IL has
been convicted, he fined the sum OF
$4,000. making six fines amounting I'm
the aggregate to the sum of SlOS,O00,
and judgment to that effect will be en-
tered In this case"
In connection with this matter,
would like TO call attention to the very
unsatisfactory state Of our criminal
law, resulting in large part from the
habit OF setting aside the judgments
OF inferior courts on technicalities alb
solutely unconnected with the merits
OF the case. and where there is no at
tempt to show that there has been any
failure OF substantial justice. IL would
he well 10 enact a law providing some
thing 20 the effect that:
No Judgment shall be set aside or
new trial granted In any cause, civil
or criminal. on the ground OF mis-
direction OF the jury or the improper
admission or rejection OF evidence, or
for error as TO any matter OF pleading
or procedure unless, In the opinion or
tho court to which the application is
made. after an examination OF the EN-
tire cause. IL shall affrmatively appear
that the error complained OF has re-
suited an a miscarriage OF justice.
Injunctions.
In my last message | suggested the en-
actment OF law I'm connection with the
issuance of inJunctions. attention havinb
been sharply drawn to the matter by the
demand that the right OF applying In
functions i'm labor cases should be wholly
abolished. II is at least doubtful whether
functions In such cases would stand the
test of the courts: in which case OF course
the legislation would be ineffective. More
over, / believe IL would be wrong alto
gcther 10 prohibit the use OF injunctions.
l. Is criminal TO permit sympathy for
criminals to weaken our hands In uphold
ing the law; and II men seek TO destroy
life or property by mob violence there
should be no impairment OF the power OF
the courts 10 deal with them In the most
summary and effective way possible But
so far as possible the abuse OF the power
should be provided against by some such
law as / advocated last year.
In this matter of injunctions there is
lodged in the hands OF the judiciary n
necessary power which is nevertheless
subject to the possibility OF grave abuse.
1t is power that should be exercised
with extreme care and should be subject
TO the jealous scrutiny of all men, and
condemnation should be meted out as
much TO the judge who fails 90 use IL
boldly when necessary as to the judge
who uses IL wantonly or oppressively.
OF course a Judge strong enough TO be Il;
for his office will enjoin any resort 20
violence or intimida ton, especially by con-
spiracy. no matter what his opinion may
he of the rights of the original quarrel
There must be no hesitation In dealing
With disorder But there must likewise
be no NNtll ahhSt pl TIC lllJuiiNNlNN luNNi
as Is implied I'm forbdding laboring men
u strive for their own betterment In
peaceful and lawful ways. nor must the
injunction be used merely 10 aid some big
corporation In carrying out schemes for
It's own aggrandizement. II must be re-
membercd that preliminary injunction
In labor case. IL granted without ado
ouate proof (even when authority can be
found 10 support the conclusions Of law
on which Il is founded). may often settle
the dispute between the parties; and
therefore IL improperly granted may DO ir-
roparablo wrong. Yet there are many
judges who assume matter-of-course
granting of a preliminary injunction TO be
the ordinary and proper judicial disposi-
ton OF such cases; and there have un-
doubtedly been tagrant wrongs committed
by Judges I'm connection with labor dis
putes even within the last few years. altho
think much less often than In former
years Such Judges by their unwise action
Immensely strengthen the hands OF those
who are striving entirely 10 do away with
the power OF injunction; and therefore
such careless use OF the injunctive pro-
cess tends 90 threaten It's very existence.
for II the American people ever become