The sun., 1908-06-17

New Jersey. ........ Thomas N McCarter
New York ........,.Sereno e. Payne
North Carolina. =. Spencer B. Adams
North Dakota .... .Judson Lamoure
Ohio. Wade H. Ellis
Oklahoma. James a. Harris
Oregon. A. Setlbrede
Pennsylvania 90. John Dalzell
| Rhode Island. 500. Ezra Dixon
South Carolina. -. John @. Capers
| South Dakota. .Coe l.. Crawford
Tennessee. H. Clay Evans
Texas. ............ Charles w. Ogden
Utah. ................G George Sutherland
Vermont. Allen M. Fletcher
| Virginia. L, Groner
Washing gton.,...... r.. A. Ballenger
West Virginia........ Isaac I. Mann
Wisconsin Henry Allen Cooper
Wyoming ............C. d. Clark
Alaska ............. George A. Shea
Arizona. Il. sloan
Dist. of Columbia. Henry H. Flather
Hawaii. ii..............J. NJ. Dawson
New Mexico ........H. .. Buren,
Philippine Islands,. Thomas l.. Hartigan
Porto Rtco...........R. II. Todd.
OPEN DISCUSSION BEGUN.
Prior to the meeting of the subcommittee
on platform the full committee on resolu-
tions held an open session. at which repre-
sentatives Of interests desiring to obtain
permitted to advocate their several ideas.
Among those who appeared were repre-
sentatives Of the interests in favor of or
opposed to the proposal to restrict the
powers of the courts. This was by far
the most interesting feature Of the open
session not only on account Of the i'm
portance of the question involved but be-
cause OF the lively speeches that were made
4, ,;,IH Hpll
H. r. Fuller Of Chicago. legal repre-
sentative OF the Brotherhood Of Locomotive
Engineers, tho Brotherhood Of Locomotive
Firemen and the Brotherhood OF Railway
Trainmen. started the proceedings by
presenting an argument in favor Of a
declaration by the Republican party against
the issue OF writs of injunction without
notice or hearing. Mr.. Fuller offered to
the committee the draft of an anti-injuno-
tion plank indorsed by the interests which
hen represented and which he asked
the committee to put in the platform. 1t
was as follows:
We pledge ourselves to such legislation as
will guarantee TO workmen those ri ghts neces.
sary to their Industrial protection. including
the right to strike and to induce or persuade
others to do So and to such legislation as will
prevent the issuance Of restraining orders
and injunctions without hearing, and guaran-
teeing trial by jury to persons accused OF con-
| tempt of court II such alleged contempt be not
committed In the presence Of the Court OF so
near thereto as to obstruct the administration
Of justice.
LABOR LAWYERS PLEA.
Mr.. Fuller told the committee some
things about the plank offered. He said
that while it did not contain reflection
on the courts 1t would prevent the abuse
Of industrial power such as had been exer-
cised by some Judges. 1t was unfair and
un-American. he declared. to deprive any
man or set of men from having their day
in court. They were deprived of that right
through practice of the courts issuing
injunctions without notice on ex parte
statements, MIR. Fuller asserted. and he
added that advantage had beon taken
Of those conditions by corporations and
certain Judges.
Il protest" he said, against anything
that will debar the laboring man Of his
issue Of writs Of injunction stood on the
statute books for seventy-nine years and
had been changed only through its omission
from new codihcation Of the laws.
Mr.. Fuller argued in favor of trying
wanted writs of Injunction issued. he said,
picked their own Judge. who would be ex-
pected to be favorable to them for his past
expressions and actions. Il fail to see.'
he said, show the dignity OF any Judge is
greater than the majesty Of the enacted
law Mr.. Fuller made q special plea that
the Republican party declare for legislation
that. would permit employees to strike and
49, do .fh lah in
able way to join them.
ANOTHER VIEWPOINT.
Delegate Kellogg, who has been one of
President Roosevelt's supporters in the
effort to restrict the powers Of the courts,
popped this question at Mr.. Fuller: Isn't
It fact that under the law Of 1898, which
was in force for seventy-nin years. 1t was
the practice to issue injunctions where
irreparable damage was threatened until
hearing could be hadp'
Il have-heard that asserted, but never
saw the evidence responded Mr.. Fuller
Don't you think that irreparable damage
might be done before an injunction could be
argued?' asked Mr.. Kellogg.
"No. do not" was Mr.. Fuler's reply.
Don't you think persisted the Minne-
sofa trust buster. shat there are cases
where mans property might be destroyed
or taken away from the State or he him.
self removed before there could be a hear
ing on an application for writ Of injuno-
tione
aIf It be true that property may be en-
dangsred by giving notice Of hearing.
although don't admit that. isn't the ques-
ton Of mans personal liberty to be CON-
aidered greater than permitting the Judqa
to restrain him without hearing2'
There was moro u this and It looked foF
. time 90 II Mr.. Kellogg was not % strongly
In favor Of the anti-injunoton proposition
a. had been represented, but little later
his manner Indicated that this impression
was erroneous.
Nh. VAN cr.xAvB's AnouMENr.
James w. Van Cleays Of g. EouiA presi.