The sun., 1908-03-19
Authoritative Statement Of Mr. Taftt
Views as 20 Injunctlons and
ROycOtts.

criminal infamy of the boycott are the
product of an intelligent and fearlessly
independent consideration OF the subject
by the Hon. WILLIAM II. TAFT We
make no apologies for the length Of the
citation. II would be unjust to curtail
the statement by emitting a single para
graph or line II Mr.. TAFT should live
10 the age Of one Of the minor patriarchS
and should speak on Labor as many
times every year as Mr., ROOSEVELT and
Mr., BRYAN together have spoken on all
subjects during their entire political ca
reers, we doubt if he could improve upon
the presentation which is here repro
duced. Only the date Of the speech is
open to criticism, i is not strictly con-
temporaneous. ltwas delivered eighteen
months ago, at Bath, Me, during the
campaign which GoMPERs and the Fed
Grafton of Labor made to drive the hon.
CHARLES F. LITTLEFIELD out Of Con-
gress and out of public life:
Mr.. LIrrLLTIELD together with Mr.. Can
non and some other Congressman, has in
CURED tho pronounced political opposition
Of the American Federation Of Labor and Of
MI GoMPtns because in the discharge of
their Congressional duties they have opposed
the passage Of = bill which is very urgently
pressed for passage BY the American Fedora
tiOn Of Labor venture 10 ask your attention
10 the issues that are thus raised
The first section Of the bill in effect denies
10 any person engaged In business the right
20 an injunction against those who propose
unlaWfully to injure his business in labor dis
putes Mr.. GoMPEEs and the supporters of
this bill contend that an Injunction cannot,
properly issue In any such case Of threatened
injury because the business rights about
10 be unlAwfully injured are not property
rights, aud an injunction can only be issued 10
protect property rights They say that the
inferior Federal courts by issuing injunc-
tlons in such cases have usurped powers not
given them. and that this section merely
limits their jurisdiction as II was limited
before the usurpatlon. The Supreme Court
Of the United States. in an opinion concurred
In by all the members Of the court, has de-
cided that an injunction may issue gainst an
unlawful interference with property rights,
or rights Of pecuniary nature, whenever a
suit and judgment for damages after the
commission Of the injury and unlawful acts
would not be an adequate remedy for the
injured party 4 judgment for damages in
such cases and under such circumstances
without an Injunction would certainly not be
On adequate remedy. and the supporters Of
the bill before the Congressional committee
did not contend that u would be-,
The exact and only question At issue.
therefore, In determining whether the fret
section o! Mr. GoNPEGSs s bill should be enacted
into Law is whether an unlawful injury 10 a
going commercial. manufacturing or trans
pottption business 10 an injury or Interference
with either right Of property or a right Of
peeuniary nature. This question would seem
TO answer itself IN the affirmative. The
good will Of business. which is really the
thing OF value a man has in the custom he has
built up by his business. is 20 much OF prom
erty right that II is frequently bought and
sold. Indeed, mans business has been fre-
auently protected by inJunotlons against un-
fair and fraudulent competition. Even If il
be conceded that property right is to be lin
ited 10 one growing out Of ownership Of tan
gible property certainly right In a going
business is right of a pecuniRry nature.
Il am willing to submit to the considerat.
judgment Of laymen whether In this matter
the courts are not correct in holding that
unlawful injuries to business are Injuries
to a pecuniary right, n they are correct.
then this section should not become law.
because it would simply make a privileged
class Of laborcrs who break the law by inJur-
ing others and would give them an immunity
from an effective remedy that lAwbreaktrs Of
no other class enjoy,
That the inferior Federal courts are right
In maintaining their Jurisdiction to issue
injunctions in such cases has been decided by
Justice HARLAN aud the Court Of Appeals OF
the seventh Circuit, and by every State Su-
preme Court land there have been ays or
ak which has been called upon to decide the
question. There is no authority in this coun-
try the other way, except magazine articles
and one or two dissenting opinions. We have
therefore n consensus of cp!n!oa oz this
subject BY Judges, whether appointed or
elected. whether holding for life or for a term
oi years. II tho view Is wrong Il Is easy 10
test il by appeal TO the Supreme Court OF
The United States. but although the oppor-
tunitics have been many this course has not
been adopted.
Leaving now the legal issue, Why should
not such threat be stopped by injunctony
Why Is II not better IN such cases that court
should decide In advance what the rights Of
the parties are upon the facts as shown and
enforce IL views than TO allow the wrong 10
be oomnt'tsd' This certainly tends to pre-.
serve law and order II. as in such cases.
there II no adequate remedy for the injured
person by leGaI proceedings the temptation
rs for lin 70 take the law. into his own hands