Omaha daily bee. (Omaha [Neb.]) 187?-1922, 1908-01-10
ANSWER TO LABOR LEADER
Letter in Reply to Request of Ohio
Federation Secretary.
FAvORS CHANGES IN STATUTE
Law Authorizing Court Orders Should
Be Made More Specific.
NOTICE FOR THE DEFENDANTS
HeariEE OF Charges OF Contempt fOI
Violating IniunctiOns should Not
BE Heard by Judge
Issuing order.

ny
Issuing Order.
MARTINS FERRY, O.. Jan. s-Tho views
Of William II. Taft. secretary of war, IN
regard to the use and abuse Of injunctions,
are stated in letter in reply to questions
propounded by Blewllyn Lewis Sc, retary
Of the Ohio Federation Of Labor. given out
today, Secretary Tart prefaces his state.
ment with a declaration that he believes
1T to be highly beneficial and entirely law
ful for laborors to unite in their common
interests" Proceeding directly to the an
swer Of the questions propounded he says:
"First-You ask me what would think Of
an enactment Of law definins the cases
| in which a temporary restraining order
may issue. and defining ia specific terms
| the language In which such order may be
framed. l see no objection to the enact
ment OF statute which shall define the
rights of laborers in thalJ controversies
with their former employers As this
statute would fix the fun limits OF their
action, 1t would necessarily furnish defin-
ite rule for determining the cases IN which
injunctions might issue, as well as their
character and scope. It should be said
that this statute, however II enacted by
congress. could relate only to the District
of Columbia some place within the ex-
elusive jurisdiction of the federal govern
ment, or TO those employers and employees
whose relations are within congressional
! definition and control. Generally. the law
! governing the relations between employer
| and employe is a state law and is only en-
| forced in the federal courts when the juris-
diction arises by reason Of the diverse
citizenship of the parties. Speaking gener-
/ ally. however. both as to federal and state
] loo lot I .N,g.
which shall, as far as possible, define the
rights OF both parties in such controversies
more accurately. Indeed, the more exactly
the law of the limitations on the actions
/ Of both parties is understood the better
for them and for the public
Favors Change In Rule.
| 'Second-You ask me what | think of a
provision that restraining order or in
junction shall issue, except after notice 10
the defendant and a hearing is had. This
was the rule under the Federal statutes for
many years but e was subsequently
abolished. In the class OF cases to which
you refer I do not any objection to
the re-enactment Of that federal statute.
Indeed, 1 have taken occasion to say IN
public speeches that the power to issue in
functions parte has given rise to certain
abuses and injustice to the laborers en-
gagged in a peaceable strike. Men leave
employment on a strike: counsel for the
employer applies TO a Judge and presents
an affidavit averring fear OF threatened
violence and making such a case on the
ex parte statement that the Judge feels
called upon to issue a temporary restrain
ing order. The temporary restraining order
is served on all the strikers they are not
lawyers; their fears are aroused by tho
process with which they are not acquainted,
entirely lawful, their common determina-
tion to carry through the strike is weak
ened by an order which they never have
had an opportunity to question and which
is calculated to discourage their proceed
ings in their original purpose. To avoid
this injustice I believe, as I have already
said that the federal statutes might well
be made what It originally. requiring
notice and a hearing before Injunction
issues.
"Third-In answer to your third ques-
; ton, It would seem that it is unnecessary to
} impose any limitation as 10 the time for
: a final hearing If. before an injunction can
issue at all, notice and hearing must be
given. The third question is relevant and
proper only should the power OF issuing
ex parte injunctions be retained In the
court. In such case | should think II
eminently proper that the statute should
P require the court issuing an ex parte In
e junction TO give the person against whom
! the injunction was issued an opportunity
TO have a hearing thereon within very
Z short space of time, not to exceed, ] should
I say, three or four days.
Hearings in Contempt Cusss.
"Fourth-Your fourth query is. In effect
what Iwould think OF provision Ia such
: cases by which the contcmnor-that is, IN,
vii tIt. A. pf .
order Of injunction-migat object to the
Judge who issued the injunction, as the one
to try the issue, whether the injunction had
been violated and TO fix punishment In case
/ of conviction, and thereby require another
, Judge TO try the issue and impose sentenc.
= if necessary. In federal courts in such a
/ case it would be proper TO provide that
a the senior circuit judge Of the circuit
should, upon the application Of the defend
ant contemnor, designate another district
% or circuit judge TO sit and hear the issue
. presented. I do not think such a restriction
4 would be unreasonable. In most cases %
!. | would be unnecessary. But / admit that
there is a popular feeling that IN contempt
s proceedings, and the very name OF the pro-
. ceedlng suggests IL, that the Judge Issuing
d the injunction has a personal sensitivensss
s In respect to its violation, and therefore
that he does not bring to the trial of the
issue presented by the charge OF contemg'
3 Of his order the calm judicial mind whici
nsures justice. I think that this popula'
= feeling is IN most cases unfouHded, but
believe that II Is better where fl can b,
done without lnjuring the authority Of th'
court and the efficiency Of its process q,
Il grant such a privilege 10 the contemnol
Il and thus avoid an appearance OF injustice
J. even at some Inconvenience In the matte
+ of securing another judge. There 10 som,
{, analogy, though Il is not complete, betWeel
+ the exclusion OF a Judge from sitting ir
q, the court OF appeals to review a decision o
u his own, which now obtains IN the practCl
.e ~ the federal court Of appeals by statute
and the present suggested case. II f. o
~ tho highest importance that the authoritl
le Of the court 10 enforce its oTn orders ~
r fecuyey should not be weakened, an
D. therefore 7 am opposed % the Intervention