The labor argus. [volume] (Charleston, W. Va.) 1906-1915, 1907-10-03
THE INJUNCTION
STANDARD BEARER
Secretary Taft, IS Still Upho1ding Monstrous
Abuse and Advocating Abolition of Trial
By Jury in Labor Cases.

In the current issue of the Amer
lean Fedcrationists President Com
pels pays his respects to Mr.. Taft
in lcnghthy editorial, from which
we have taken the following:
Since the announcement that
Secretary VIM. III. Taft as an
ayowed aspirant for the presiden-
tial nominations, it has been ar
ranged that he should deliver a
number of addresses on his way
westward, making visit to the
Philippines, Japan and China, and
do such "other things'' as will
tend to further his aspiration. He
recently delivered the first formal
address at Columbus, Ohio, and
then at different points, reaching
Oklahoma City, and thence to
Seattle. In each speech he dis
cu>>ed several important questions
of general or local character. In
the last few addresses he devoted
considerable of his time and atten-
ton to the subject of injuncuions,
and to this we desire to call special
attention.
''One of the reasons which he
gave for advising the people of
Oklahoma to reject the constitu-
tion was that, in his opinion, it
contained a bad and dangerous
limitation upon the power Of the
courts to grant and enforce writs
Of Injunction. Mr.. Taft. it ap-
pears, was very "strong" and "out-
spokcn' in his handling of this
question.
''rhe injunction, he declared,
was one of the most valuable, benc-
iiclcnt, and essential Instruments
of law and Justice. 1t was even
more necessary for the protection of
the poor than of the rich, and to
limit it i'll any way would put IN ore
power in the hands of the rich
criminals and oppressors.
''Ihe provisions to which he so
seriously objected did not, how
ever limit the power to issue in
functions. 1t only limited the
power of judges to punish alleged
Vlolatols of injunctions. to send
them to prison for alleged com
tempt of court without trial by
jury. 1t is to the intervention OF
a jury between the injunction and
the sentence for contempt that the
secretary took exception.
II does not appear that he was
III " humorous mood. He seemed
wholly in earnest, he argued that
1T is essential to the protection of
The poor man that judges should
nave the power to find men guilty
oi contempt and give them prison
sentences without referring the facts
OF the case to jury of the de-
iendant's peers.
Now, we do not think it ncces-
Sary to enter into any prolonged
controversy with Mr.. Taft ON this
point. Organized labor is quite
competent to judge how much the
power of judges to declare men
guilty of contempt and condemn
'hem to imprisonment has, in the
past, benefited the poor man or is
likely to benefit him in the future.
me idea that the rich would de-
rive advantage from the limitation
vi TINS power suggested by the
oklahomans Ca limitation made
necessary by the developments of
1he last 10 or II years. will ap-
pear to all intelligent workmen as
a solemn joke-which it is.
The argument, however, becomes
Interesting in connection with Mr..
iait's aspiration in the political
ield. 1t shows that he has not
changed his position since his
campaign in Congressman Little
neld S district last year. Now, as
then, he ignores all the fundament-
al and vital objections to the abuse
Oh the injunction and the conse-
4uent abolition of trial by jury in
iaoor cases. He still seeks to
evade the issue, to find sophistical
reasons for upholding monstrous
abuse. He has learned nothing
Hnd forgotten nothing on the sub,
Ject since his career as a Judge OF
The Federal Circuit Court. He
was one of the early injunction
Judges, and as statesman and poll
.lclan he is evidently determined
TO defend his record.
EVen when he was judge of an
inferior Ohio court-the Superior