The news-democrat. (Providence, R.I.) 1906-1909, 1908-01-10


Til secretary expresses this opinion Il
letter In reply TO questions put 10 hin
by Llewellyn Ltwis. secretary of the Obi
Federation OF Labor, relative TO his view
on the use and abuse OF inJunctions TIL
letter was given ont here today
Mr.. Taft says that the power to issu
injunctlons ex parte has given rise TO Ger
tain abuses and injusuces 10 laborers en-
gagged in a peaceable strike and that h'
sees no objection TO the re-enactment o.
Federal statute which was abolished
some tint ago. His answer TO the ques
tions follows:
"First-You ask me what j would thinl
OF an enactment OF law defining tho
cases In which a temporary restraining
order may issue. and defining In specific
terms the language I'm which such order
may be framed. | see no objection TO the
enactment of statute which shall de-
fine the rights OF laborers I'm their con-
troversies with their former employers.
AS this statute would fix the full limits
OF their action IL would necessarily fur
nish a definite rule for determining the
cases IN which injunctions might issue,
as well as their character and scope
ut should be said that this statute.
however. IL enacted by congress, could
relate only 10 the District OF Columbia or
some place within the exclusive Jurisdic-
tion OF the Federal government. or 10
those employers and employees whose re-
latlons are within congressional definition
and C ontrol.
"Generally. the law governing the rela-
tions between employer and employe is n
state law end is only enforced in the fed
cral courts when the jurisdiction arises
nv reason Of the diverse citizenship OF the
parties. Speaking generally, however
both rs 10 federal ana state Legislation.
sec no objection to a statute which shall,
20 far as possible define the rights OF
both parties I'm such controversies more
accurately. Indeed the more exactly the
law OF the limitations on the actions OF
both parties aro understood the better Tor
them and for the public
OPPOSES EX-PARTE ORDERS.
"Second-You ask me what / think of a
provision that no restraining order or m
Junction shall issue except after notice
10 the defendant, and hearing had. This
was the rule under tho fedreal statutes
for many years. but Il was subsequently
abolished In the class of cases 10 which
YOU refer I do not sec any objection 10
the re-enactmcnt OF that federal statute
Indeed, | have taken occasion TO say IN
public speeches that the power to issue
injunctions ex parte has given rise TO GER
tain abuses and injustices To laborers en-
gagged I'm a peaceablc strike.
MEN leave employment on strike;
counsel for the employer applies 10
Judge and presents an affidavit averrng
fear of threatened violence and making
such case on the eX parte statement
that the Judge feels called upon 10 is
sue a temporary restraining order. The
temporary restraining order Is served on
all the strikers; they are not lawyers;
their fears are aroused by the process,
with which they are not acquainted; ana,
although their purpose many have been
entirely lawful. their common determina-
sion 10 carry through the strike Is weak
ened by an order which they never have
had an opportunity 10 question and which
IS calculated 10 discourage their proceed
ing In their original purpose. To avod
this injustice believe, as ! have already
said. that the federal statute might wei
be made what II was originally. requiring
notice and a hearing before an injunc-
ton issues.
'Third-In answer 10 your third ques-
tion. il would seem that Il Is unnecessary
10 impose any limitation as 10 the tine
for final hearing, IL, before an inJune-
ton can issue at all. notice and nearing
must be given. The third question Is
relevant and proper. only should the
power OF Issuing eX parte intunctioas bs
retained In the court. In such case,
should think II eminently proper that the
statute should require the court Issuing
an ex parte Injunction TO give the per-
son against whom the Injunction was Is
sued an opportunity 10 have hearing
t1tTtOn Nllllln a WHY S0OIh space pk Nltslts
not to exceed. l should say. three or
AS TO THE COURTS.
'Fourth-Your fourth query Is. in effect.
what would think of a provision in such
cases by which the contemnor-tltat is,
the person charged with the violation OF
sn ordor OF injunction--might object 20
the judge who issued the injunction, as
the one To try the issue. whether the In
junction had been violated. and 10 fix
punishment In case OF conviction. and
thereby ieeuire another judge 10 try the
issue and impose sentence, III necessary.
In federal courts. In such case, II
would be proper toi provide that the Sc
nior circuit Judge OF the circuit should.
Upon tho APPLICATION OF the defendant or
ccntemnor. designate another district or
circuit Judge TO sit and hear the issue
presented. ! do not think such n restric.
tion would bc unreasonable. In most
cases II would be unnecessary. But I
admit that there is popular feeling that
I'm contempt proceedings. and the very
name OF the proceeding suggests Il. that
the Judge issuing the injunction has per-
sonal senS tiveness In respect TO ts yio-
lation. and therefore that he does no.
bring 20 the trial OF the Issue presented
by the charge OF contempt OF his o;ders
the calm judicial mind which insures JUS
tice
II think that this popular feeling is. in
most cases. unfoundcd but l believe that
Il Is better. where 10 can pe done without
injuring the authority of the court and
the efficiency Of its process. 10 grant such
q privilege TO the contcmnor and thus
avoid an appearance of injustice. even at
some Inconvenience In the matter Of Sc
curing another Judge
There Is some analogy, though II is
not complete. between the exclusion OF n
Judge from sitting in the court OF ap-
peals 20 review a decision Of his own,
which now obtains In the practice Of the
federal court Of appeals. by statute. and
the present suggested case. II Is Of the
highest importance that the authority OF
tho court TO enforce its own orders should
not be weakened. and. therefore. l am
opposed TO the Intervention of a judge be-
tween the courts decree and It's enforce
ment by contempt proceeding IL would
mean long delay and greatly weaken the
authority OF the court
II do not think that the permission 20
change the Judge. however. would constl-
tute either serious delay or injure the
efficacy OF the order, while Il may secure
greater public confidence In the justice
A4A 8. B. NEWc0M