The daily morning journal and courier. [volume] (New Haven, Conn.) 1894-1907, 1906-12-05

having been sharply drawn to the mat
ter by the demand that the right of APP S
plying injunctions in labor cases should
be wholly abolished. 1t is at least
doubtful whether law abolishing the
use Of iniunctions in such cases would
stand the test of the courts; IN Which
case of course the legislation would be
ineffective. Moreover believe 1t
would be wrong altogether to prohibit
the use of injunctions 1t is criminal to
permit sympathy for criminals to
weaken our hands in upholdlng the
law; and if men seek to destroy life or
property by mob violence there should
be no impairment of the power of the
courts to 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 a |
necessary power which is nevertheless |
subject to the possibility OF grave |
abuse. 1t is a power that should be oX-
ercised with extreme care and shot'd |
be subject to the jealous scrutiny of all
men, and condemnation should be
melted out as much TO the judge who
fails to use it boldly when necessary as
to the judge who uses it wart0nly or
oppressively OF course a judge strong
enough to be fit for his office viii en-
| join any resort to violence or tntimiia-
ton, especially by conspiracy, no nat
ter What his opinion may be Of the
rights of the original quarrel. There
must be no hesitation in dealing with
disorder. But there must likewise be
no such abuse Of the injunctive power
as is implied in forbidding laboring
men to strive for their own betterment
in peaceful and lawful ways; nor must
the injunction be used merely to aid
some big corporation in carrying out
schemes for its ofn ACKNOWLEDGEMENT.
II must be remembered that j pfelini-
nary injunction in a labor "aSa If
granted without adequate PROOF leven
when authority can be found to SUP
port the conclusions of law on watch It
is founded), may often settle he dis
pute between the parties; AMI refore
if improperly granted may lie irr5adYl-
BILE wrong. Yet there are many judges
who assume a matter-of-coucse grant
ling of a preliminary injunction tc be
the ordinary and proper judicial 6ispo-
sition of such cases; and tnete Rave
undoubtedly been fragrant ws0 l5s COM
mitted by judges in connecuJl With la
Dor disputes even within he 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 to do away with the
power of injunctiOn and therefore
such careless use of the injunctiye pro-
cess tends to threaten it's very exist
ence, for if the American people ever
become convinced that this process is
habitually abused, whether in matters
affecting labor or in matters affecting
corporations, it will be well-nigh inn
possible to prevent its abolition.
Il may be the highest duty of judge
at any given moment to disregard not
merely the wishes of individuals of
great political or financial power but
the overwhelming tide of public senti-
ment; and the judge who does thus
wrong, who brushes aside the plea of
amy special interest when the pleading
is not founded on righteousness, per-
forms the highest service to the coun-
try. Such a Judge is deserving of all
honor; and all honor can not be paid to
this wise and fearless judge if we per-
init the growth of an absurd conVan-
'tion which would forbid any criticism
Of the judge of another .ype, who
shows himself timid in the presence of
arrogant disorder. or who on INSULT
, Gent grounds grants an injunction that
does grave injustice, or who in his ca
pacity as q construer and therefore in
, part a maker, of the law, in fragrant
fashion thwarts the cause of decent
government. The judge has a power
over which no review can be exercised;
he himself sits in review upon the acts
. of both the executive and legislative
branches of the government; save in
the most extraordinary cases he is
amenable only at the bar of public
opinion in reference to a man with
such power shall neither be exprest nor
led.
, The best judges have ever been fore
most to disclaim any immunity from
; criticism. This has been true since thu
days of the great English Lord Chan
cell5r Parker, who said, let all the
people be at liberty to know what
{ found my Judgment upon; that, sc
when 1 have given it any cause, other
$ may be at liberty to Judge of me" Tn,
-, proprleties of the case were set forth
/ with singular clearness and good tenn
i per by Judge w, H. Taft, when a Uni
: ted States circuit judge, eleven year!
= ago, in 1895;
l THE opportunity freely and publicly
to criticize judicial action is of vastly
$ more Importance no the body polite
1 than the immunity of courts ant
judges from unjust aspersions and at
, tack. Nothing tends more to rende
: judges careful in their decisions an(
anxiously solicitous to do exact iusdc,
= than the consciousness that every act
of theirs is to be subjected to the intel.
ligent scrutiny of their fellow-men
1 Such criticism is beneficial in proper
ton as it is fair, dbspassionate discrim
i mating and based on knowledge OF
e sound legal principles. The comment,
4 made by learned text writers and b,
l. the acute editors Of the various law re
views upon judicial decisions are there
y fore highly useful Such critics consti
e tute more or less impartial tribunals O
y professional opinion before which each