New-York tribune., 1908-01-10
TAFT ON INJUNCTI0NS.
His Tiezcs as to Their Use and Abusf
IN Letter to Labor Leader.

Martins Ferry, Ohio Jan. 9--The views or
William H. Taft, Secretary of War, in regard
to the use and abuse of injunctons are stated in
letter in reply to questions propounded py
IIleweIlyn Lewis secretary of the Ohio Fedora
ton of Labor, given ont here to-day Secretary
Taft prefaces his statement with a declaration
that he believes lit to be highly beneficial and
entirely lawful for laborers to unite in their
con1mon interests Proceeding to answer the
questions, he says:
First-You ask me what 1 would think Of an
enactment of law defining the cases in which
fnirig In specific terms the language in which seh
order may be framed l see no objection 10 tne
rights of aborers in their controversies with their
former employers AS this statute Would iiS the JTe
furnish a definite rule for determining the cases in
hch and soepe s It shoud be said that
statute however if enacted by Congress. could
place within the exclusive jurisdiction of the fed
ea o5 reaone 9 1e ar within
definition and control Generally the law gov.rn i
a state law, and is only enforced in the federal
courts when the jurisdiction arises by reason Oh
reneqav sng hoWave both as to and state
SIC FAR a ase possSe oS define the rights
parties in such controverSes more @
on the actions of both parties IS unders'ooa Tue
better for them and for ,he public .-..;o,
gd16 to rsr M Or and Ta
for many years. but it was subsequently abolished
see any objection to the re-enactment of that fed
eral statute. Indeed have taken occasion 70 say
tl2ms eX e ~ the Isborers engaged in pe,ceable
e3 TO iaave t embodiment on strike; counsel
for the employer applies to judge ana 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 tempo
Tafs nrder is served on ali the strikers they not
Wif6 which they are acquainted; and. although
their purpoSe may have been entlrely lawful theII
common determination 70 carry tnIougn the Stline HIN
IS weakened by order which they never nave
had opportunity to question d anu Tipici IN - their
original purpose. TO AVOID this injustice | believe
r11ght well be made what 1t was Originally, re
curing notice and Il hearing before an inJuhclioh
Third-ln answer to your third question: it would
that it. il is @ e; n 70 Rearns 5efore an
injunction issue at all notice ana aearng nuSi d
nroner only should the power of issuing eX parte
fniunctions be retained in the court In ST such case
should require the court issuing an ex parte in
{nncfn Was 10 issued an have
ing thereon within very short space o. tiine' nor
Fourlh-Your fourth query is in effect T. what ,tob !
think OF provision hi in sHeh cases BY wRifn
the violation an order of ction.Inignt OBJ
@ }ect to to trS the issue Whether Injunction had
been violated and 10 fix punishment III ,d cdse W "
1ll.
w the issue and impose sentence If necessary In
federal courts such case II would be proper 20
senior circuit Judge OF the CIRCUIT
shouId upon the application CT the defend mt or
cnDfen,nor designate another district or circuit
i,1dee 10 Sit and hear the issue presented L .'H
not think such a restriction would be unfeasonable
In In most cases it would be unnecessary But ad-
nil thai there a popular feeling that IN con-
ten1nt proceedings and the very name OF the pro-
caedfng suggests it, the Judge Issuing the m
iInc+ion has personal senstIvent.is IN respect TO
re violation and therefore. that he does not Drlng
to the trial of the issue presented oy the cifrPe
cortemnt of his order the calm judicial mind WnlF1
nsnres Justice. I think that this popular feeling Is
he+ter where be done without ln1ur1ng tne
outboritV of the court and the efficiency OF its
nrorees TO grant such a privilege 10 tne' con
Hammer and thus avoid an appearance OF lnJust1ce
oSia,, at some inconvenience in the matter OF Sc
o',rine another Judge. There is some analogy al.
bni,g6 II is not comrete. between the exclusion "f
i,Idee from sitting In the Court of Appears 10 re-
decision his which now OBTAIN IN
tba nractice Of the federal Court of ApPettS ny
.o+,+a and the present suggested case IL Is n1
.ba highest importance that the authority oi the
on,,rt To e1f0r it's orders eHertlVelN Shoutf
,ot he weakened and therefore an opposed 70 Tn
irtf,.vcntton of a jury between the court decree
I'D it's enforcement by contempt proceedings II
%iouId mean long delay and greatly weaken me
anthortv OF the court. do not think that tnn
aern,ission To change the ildge however. would
oStit1te either serious elay injure the ef1cHnN
~ the order while it MIGHT secure greater puniic
oa,fdance in the Justice Of the courts action Ire
naornnce Of Justice almost imnortant as
the existence of it in the administration OF TIE