Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1906-12-04
ANNUAL MESSAGE
OF THE PRESIDENT

Continued from Seventeenth Page.l
determinations between different citizens
or different classes Of citizens. This crime
In its nature Is one usually done with Sc
crecy. and proof Of which 1t IL very difhcult
to obtain. Tho interstate commerce act
was past in 1887. nearly twenty years ago.
Ever since that time complaints OF the
granting Of rebates by railroads have been
common. urgent and insistent. and altho
the Congress has repeatedly past legfsia-
ton endeavoring to put q stop to 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 informed, this case and one recently
brought In 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 circumstances, am forced to the
conclusion. in q case in which the proof
is SO clear and the facts are SO fragrant.
1t Is the duty Of the court to fix penalty
which shall in some degree be common
surate 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, presumably, acted without any
advantage to himself and without any In
terest in the transaction. either by the d.
rect authority or in accordance with what
he understood to be the policy or the wishes
Of his employer.
'"The sentence Of this court in this case is.
kH~k Por oh ~
the six offenses upon which he has been
convicted, be fined the sum of $1,000. max
ing six fines. amounting in all to the sum
Of $1,000; and the defendant, The New York
Central and Hudson River Railroad Com
pany, for each Of the six crimes Of which
it has been convicted, be fined the sum of
$4,000. making six fines amounting in the
aggregate to the sum of $10S.O00 and judg-
ment to that effect will be entered in this
case"
Setting Aside Of Judgements ana
Granting Of New Trials.
In connection with this matter, I would
like to call attention to the very unsatis-
factory state Of our criminal law, resulting
in large part from the habit Of setting aside
the judgments Of inferior courts on techni-
calities absolutely unconnected with the
merits Of the case. and where there Is no
attempt to show that there has been any
failure of substantial justice. It would be
well to enact law providing something
to the effect that:
No judgment shall be set aside or new
trial granted In any cause civil or criminal.
on the ground Of misdirection 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 Of the court to which the applica-
ton Is made, after an examination of the
entire cause, 1t shall afflrmatively appear
that the error complained of has resulted
in q miscarriage of justice.
Injunctiona.
In my last message I suggested the en-
actment Of law in connection with the
issuance Of injunctions. attention having
been sharply drawn to the matter by the
demand that the right of applying injunc-
lions in labor cases should be wholly aboI-
ished. It Is at least doubtful whether q
law abolishing altogether the use Of In
functions In such cases would stand the
test of the courts; in which case Of course
the legislation would be ineffective. More
over, believe it would be wrong altogether
to prohibit the use Of injunctfons. It Is
criminal to permit sympathy for criminals
to weaken our hands in unfolding the law;
and If men seek to destroy life or property
by mob violence there should be no i'm
pairment Of the power Of the courts to
deal with them In the most summary and
effective way possible. But 80 far as pos
sible the abuse of the power should be pro-
vided against by some such laws as I adj
vocated last year.
In this matter of injunctions there Is
lodged in the hands of the judiciary a nee
essary power which is nevertheless subject
to the possibility OF grave abuse. 1t Is
power that should be exercised with ex-
treme care and should be subject to the
jealous scrutiny of all men, and condemna-
ton should be melted out as much to the
judge who fails to use it boldly when neces-
sary as to the Judge who uses it wantonly
or oppressively. OF course Judge strong
enough to be fit for his office will enjoin
any resort to violence or intimidation, es-
pecially by conspiracy. no matter 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 forbiddlng laboring
men to strive for their own betterment in
injunctio: be used merely to aid some big
corporation in carrying out schemes for its
own aggra li:Zement. It must be remem-
bered that reiminary Injunction in a
labor case. if granted without adequate
proof (even when authority can be found
to support the conclusions of law on which
1t is founded). may often settle the dispute
between the parties; and therefore IL i'm
properly granted may do irreparable wrong
Yet there are many judges who assume
matter-of-course granting of a prelimi-
nary injunction to be the ordinary and
proper judicial disposition of such cases:
and there have undoubtedly been fragrant
wrongs committed by judges in connection
with labor disputes even within the last
few years. altho L think much less often
than in former years. Such judges by
their unwise action immensely strengthen
the hands of those who striving entirely
to do away with the power. of Injunction;
and therefore such careless use of the in
junctive process tends to threaten its very
existence. for II the American people ever
become convinced that this process is habit
ually abused, whether in matters affecting
labor orsin matters affecting corporations.
1t will be well-nigh impossible to prevent