Lexington gazette. [volume] (Lexington, Va.) 1871-1962, 1908-10-28
A Square Deal for Labor and for
Capital
(By aEoRGE DARIEN)

Neb. Oct. LIST: Il agree that injunctions
have been issued which have been
much too broad, and the reason why
they have been too bread is because
they have been issued without notice,
and the Judge has not sufficiently con-
sidsred it 1t Is an outrage
and ought not to be permitted, and l
ain not defending it; Lut what l say
is. there are judges and judges; and 20
visit me with responsibility for every
abuse that has been committed and
not to look to my own cases and to
know what my own cases decided, is not
to give me a square deal"
1t Is a pity that this learned and
estinable gentleman cannotsee his way
clear to take just one more step in the
right direction. Surely, he will not
oppose a legislative enactment intended
to limit the arbitrary power of judge
to impose an excessive Jail penalty for
indirect contempt. This can be done
without impaiIing ''the indispensable
power and authority of the courts,
and without $50 hampering the admis-
lstration of justice as to make the
courts q laughing stock" viii not a
statute, such as the one l suggest in
the next paragraph, meet the approba-
ton of every fair-minded judge in the
land and OF every impartial citzen2
"When court imposes the penalty
of imprisonment for indirect contempt,
the prisoner shall be released at the
end of fifteen days, unless,in the mean
time, ali impartial jury, by vote Of
three.foulths of their number, shall con-
firm the sentence of the court. II the
Jury, before the expiration Of the first
fifteen days of the defendants imprison-
ment. shall reach unanimous decision
in his favor, he shall be released immedi-
ately; but if the charge of contempt is
sustained by three.fourths' vote, the
Jury shall then decide what length Of
imprisonment, beyond fifteen days, is
Just and proper penalty. A majority OF
less than three-fourths shall neither
add to, nor subtract from, the fifteen
days. If term of imprisonment i'm
posed by the court is less than fifteen
days, the judge may refuse the defen-
dant's request for a jury; but If the
courts sentence is for fifteen or more
days of imprisonment, the defendant
shall have the right to demand trial
by jury"
The purpose of an injunction is, not
to infllct punishment for an injury al
ready done but to prevent the doing of
an injury. If the person enjoined con-
temptuously disregards the order OF
the court, he should certainly be pun
ished with sufficient vigor to inspire
him thereafter with a wholesome re-
spect for the law. But severity
greater than is necessary 10 produce
this effect, is tyranny. When strike
is conducted by the use of threats and
| intimidation, the imprisonment OF the
leaders for two weeks may not stop the
strike, but it will give the civil authori-
ties ample tire for all needful pre-
oautionary measures to preserve the
Heace-even to the extent of calling
upon the Governor for the employment
of the militia. The release OF the pro
minent strikers after an imprison'
ment of two weeks, with a warning
that they will be rearresied for a repe-
tition of their offence, will have a good
effect if the strike is still in progress.
They will be very apt to give their fell
lows pr1dent counsel. But to hold a
striker in Jail long after the ttIlke is
over and his assC ciates are quietly at
work, is hardship for which there is
no justlficaton-unless there were ag-
grayati9g circumstances attending the
! defendants disobedience, which |
would leave for the consideration OF a
| jury
/ There would be no disorderly strike
| if legislation had not deprived the iahol
unions of their most effective weapon
the boycott. According to Judge Taft
although II secondary boycott is
clearly contrary to the principles OF the
common law, primary boycott" is
perfectly gitimate-except where it
is forbidden by express statute, as in
some of the States, or by implication,
as in the federal statute against "com
binations in restraint of trade'' that is
combinations to prevent buyers and
sellers from dealing with whom they
please. OF course, forcible restraint
of trade is wrong, whether the force be
the violence Of Individuals or pose
cution by the government. AT common
law there are no illegal cOmbina-
tons, either of capitalists or of labor
ers, except where several individuals
conspire to do au act which would be
criminal if done by any one of them
alone.
The only practical effect Of the Sher-
man antitrust law has been to deprive
the labor unions of their common law
right to institute a peaceful primary
boycott. Combinations of capital
have been untouched. Dissolved BY
in junction, they invariably find meth
cd of he organization which will make
them immune from prosecution. "The
trusts have come today" says Rookie
Teller. do nst doubt it, But | ask
must the labor unions go? Judge Taft
says they are to stay; and If they be
have themselves he will protect them.
Very well. Give laborers their com