The National tribune., 1908-12-31
THE SENTENCES OF THE LABOR
LEADERS.

tences upon Samuel Gompers, Presi-
dent of the American Federation Oh
Labor; John Mitchell, one OF Its vice
Presidents, and Frank Morrison, lts
Secretary. The good will come from
sharply rousing up attention as to the
exact legal status of the Federation OF
Labor and the rights and interests of
Those with whom it comes in contact
So far there has been no legal delimita-
ton as to how far labor unions may go
in what they claim to be legitimate
warfare.
The case arose out of a dispute be-
tween the unions and the Buck Stove
and Range Company. Of st. Louis,
which, on account of a strike, was
blacklisted in the official organ of the
organization, the American Federation
ist. The Buck Stove and Range Com
pany applied for and received an in
junction against such publication, as
injurious to their business, but this in
junction was -disregarded.
The case was carried TO the Supreme
Court of the District of Columbia, and
Justice Thew Wright adjudged the Off
|
tempt of court, and sentenced Gompers
to IL months in Jail, Mitchell to nine
months and Morrison to six months.
This has brought matters to a crisis
and stirred labor circles to high de-
gree. The President is being impor
| tuned to take action, and the lawyers
of the country are intently studying the
law and the decision. It involves the
whole of the important questions of
the elements of injunction. of the power
of Judges to punish for contempt Of
court, the extent to which labor organ
izations can go in their warfare against
employers. and the protection which
business men may have against these
injurious campaigns.
Out of this agitation will come son3e-
thing Of great benefit. It is to the
credit of Messrs. Gompers, Mitchell and
Morrison that they professed a strong
respect for the law and the courts. and
the belief that they had done nothing
inconsistent with their rights as Amer
lean citizens.
In a country governed by law 1t is
held that every man has protection
against injuries by his fellow-men, and
the Buck Stove and Range Company
alleges that they were seriously injured
by the publication in the American
lFederationist. The court supported this
view, and tried to protect them The
lquestion now becomes burning whether
the Federation, in its efforts to secure
what it considers justice to those whom
it represents, has the right to use such
weapons as the boycott This question
has been before the English courts,
with a decision against the labor unions.
and our courts have followed the pre-
lcedents set there. The boycott is a
terrible weapon, and may mean ruin to
those against whom It is directed.
Therefore, has any man right to use
it? If so, it should, like other rights,
be used with the utmost circumspec-
: ton, under strong legal limitations.
While we believe in the right to strike
as necessary protection to working
/ men, and peaceable strikes should have
the protection of the law, yet these
again should have careful legal Hmita-
tions, and while asserting their own
rights vigorously workingmen. have no
privilege Of unduly injuring their eppo-
nents.
i The matter is an exceedingly compli-
Gated one, but we believe that in the
heat of the discussion something will
be evolved which will define what is
justice to both sides.
AS to the injunctions the matter is
still more complicated. Where there
has been much bowling over injunc-
tions by those who have been restrained
by them, conspicuous benefits have been
secured Of late by the proper use of
the injunction of which we hear little
It is assumed by many, for example
that the railroads are the principal
beneficiaries Of injunction. but in sew
eral conspicuous cases lately the rail-
roads have been restrained from COM
binations and advance of rates by the
merchants, dairymen and others, who
have secured relief long before the
cumbrous machinery Of the Interstate
Commerce Commission had been put in
, operation and reached the case.
The powers Of Injunction and of pun
| ishing contempt are summary. and from
, the very nature Of things require in
, slant execution. To be any good they
/ must be immediate and effective. If a
, man threatens another with injury, an
Injunction will promptly stop him,
{ whereas all the injury that he contem-
: plated might be done before the case
, could be brought to trial in the ordi-
, nary way. An injunction simply stops
him from doing what he threatens un-
til the courts have the opportunity to
examine as to, the consequences Of such
action. A punishment for contempt of
J court is equally necessary. and it is
hard to see how it can be essentially
, modified. A Judge must make his or
ders obeyed or his decision would be
futile. OF course, there are times when
all this power is exercised wrongfully,
: but the history of the country shows
, that this Is rarely done.
In the present instance one Judge
l had issued the injunction, while anoth-
er and higher court had punished for
l the violation Of the Injunction. This
relieves the action Of the court below
E from the accusation that Judge can
act as both Judge and executioner.
:. Whi1a a m - xuf1I b1 al