The Billings gazette. [volume] (Billings, Mont.) 1896-1919, 1908-01-10
SECRETARY or WAR TAFT De.
slREs BETTER PROTECTION
FOR woRktNeMEN.
WRITES HIS VIEWS
Faxors Law Defining Rights Of Work.
ers Ii Labor controversles-Be.
Iieves Both Sides Should BE Heard
Before injunction is Issued-Right
to Object 70 Judge Favored.

S2s5Hl - S0JSSS ~ V0N8C y 0VVIWUs
Martins Ferry, o., Jan. 9.-The
views Of William H. Taft, secretary Of
war, in regard to the abuse Of injunc.
lions, are stated in letter in reply
to questions propounded by Secretary
Lewis Of the Ohio Federation Of La.
Dor. given out here today. Secretary
Taft prefaces his statement with a
declaration that he believes it to be
highly bened1cial and entirely lawful
for laborers to unite in their common
interest"
Proceeding directly to the answer
Of the questions proponded, he says:
Favors Injunction Law.
sFirst-You ask me what would
think Of the enactment Of law de-
flning In specific terms the language
in which such orders may be framed.
! see no objection to the enactment
of a statute which shall define the
rights Of laborers in their controver-
sizes with their former employers AS
this statute would fix the full limits
of their action, 1t would necessarily
furnish definite rule for determin-
Ing the cases in which injunctions
might issue, as we'll as their charac-
ter and scope. It should be said that IL
this statute is enacted by congress it
can relate only to the District Of Co
lumbia or some place within the ex-
elusive jurisdiction OF the federal
government. or to those employers
and employees whose relations are
within congressional definition and
control. Generally the law governing
the relations between employer and
employe Ia q state law and is only en-
forced in the federal courts when the
Jurisdiction arises by reason Of the
diverse citizenship Of the parties.
Speaking generally, however, both as
to federal and state legislation, 1 see
no objection to statute which shall,
80 far as possible, define the rights Of
both parties to such controversies
more accurately. Indeed, the more
exactly the law Of limitations on the
actions Of both parties are under.
stood. the better for them and for the
public.
Would Renew Old Lave.
"Second-You ask me what think
of proposition that no restraining
order or injunction shall issue except
after notice to the defendant and q
hearing is had. This was the rule i'm.
der the federal statutes for many
years, but it was subsequently abol.
ished. IN the class Of cases to which
you refer. I do not see any objection
to the re-enactment Of that federal
statute. Indeed, have taken occa-
sion to say in public speeches that
the power to issue indunctions ex
parte has given rise to certain abuses
and injustice to the laborers engaged
in peacable strike
MEN leave employment on q
strike; counsel for the employer ap-
plies to judge and presents an az.
hdavit averring fear Of threatened
violence and making such q case on
the ex parte statement that the Judge
feels called upon to issue q temporary
injunction. The temporary restrain
ing order is served on all the strik-
4ers; they are not lawyers: their fears
are aroused by the process with
which they are not acquainted; and,
although their purpose may have
been entirely lawful. their common de-
termination to carry through The
strike Is weakened by an order which
they never have had an opportunity
to question and which is calculated
to. discourage their action. To avoid
this injustice ! believe. az I have al.
ready said. that the federal statute
might well be made what It was orig
inally. requiring notice and hearing
before an injunction issue.
T TI M
Limit Time for Hearing. Il
Third lin answer to your Ques-
.tioa. It would seem that 1t is uneces-
sary to impose any limitation as to
the time for final hearing for, be-
fore an injunction can issue at all.
notice and hearing must be given.
The third question Is relevant and
proper only should the power OF Is
suing ex parte injunctions be re-
tanned In the court.
I'm such cases I should think 1t en-
inently prope- that the statute should
require the court issuing an ex parte
injunction to give the person against
whom the Injunction 10 issued IN op-
portunity to have hearing thereon
within . very short space Of time not
TO exceed. should say. three or four
days
ohjeesiens 10 Judge.
''Fourth- Your fourth question n