The wageworker. (Lincoln, Neb.) 1904-????, 1906-04-27
THE CORPORATION soPHIsTRY.

THE CORPORATION SOPHISTRY.
David M. Parry's paper, American
Industries" very naturally flies to the
defense of the injunction in labor dis
putes. 1t says:
1T must never be forgotten that no
court ever issues an injunction in such
cases except to forbid the violation of
law. If the union men had no wish to
violate the law they would not care
whether the courts had the power of
enjoining them or not Nobody OBJ
jects to be forbidden to do what he
does not wish to do. No court can
enjoin any one from doing a lawful
act, and when labor unions demand
that unlawful acts shall not be en-
joined they place themselves in po-
sition which will not command public
sympathy"
AS sophist the man who wrote that
is entitled to the prize belt. The high
est courts have decided that an or
individual member may do legally, and
trades unions object, and rightfully, to
injunctions which restrain their men,
bers from doing as trades unionists
what they are permitted by law to do
as individuals. For instance, any in
dividual has right to use the United
States mails, subject to certain postal
laws. But an Omaha Judge issued an
srtV hn M nf a
local trades union from using the mails
for a purpose sanctioned by the postal
laws and regulations. While these
members were restrained from using
the union, the employers of the nom
unionists were left free to write letters
to the unionists beseeching them to de-
sert the union. And this is the sort of
ching that American Industries" con-
dones and defends.
1t is entirely lawful for member
of one fraternal order to accost the
member of another fraternal order
and endeavor to induce him to join
the order of the man first mentioned.
Yet judges have drawn a distinction
and restrained members of trades
union from endeavoring to persuade
non-unionists to join the union-a per-
fectly legal act save when rendered
illegal by the dictum of some subser-
Went corporation Judge.
Trades unionists would not be so bit
xerly opposed to the injunction in
labor disputes were it not for the con-
tempt action which follows as logical
result. A judge enacts law of his
own, and then proceed to try, convict
and sentence the violator of that self
made law without giving the victim an
opportunity for defense or even a trial
by jury of his peers. A judge may
issue an order restraining man from
doing as a trades unionist something
that he may with perfect propriety do
as a private individual, and If the
trades unionist violates the restraining
order the judge sentences him to jail
like a common criminal. Yet the con-
stitution of the United States, fifth
amendment, very clearly states that
no person shall be deprived
of life, liberty or property without due
process of law" And the next amend
ment guarantees the right of speedy
trial by a jury of ones peers in all
criminal prosecutions. If a contempt
case carrying jail sentence is not a
criminal case, what is 1t? And yet
american Industries" seeks to con-
denim trades unionists for protesting
against this violation of the constitu-
ton and denial of the rights of the
citizen.
Trades unionists are not opposing
the Injunction, but the abuses of the
Injunction. They are willing to take
their chances before an unbiased court
on a full and fair hearing of both sides,
and are willing to abide the cOnse-
quences If given the rights guaranteed
by the constitution and the bill Of
rights. What they object to-and
rightly, tools this thing of having
judges arrogate to themselves the
rights of all three branches of the gov