The Montgomery advertiser., 1908-09-24

that they would boycott any firm which furnished him with materiai. Moores and Company had contract to deliver to this boss brick layer a lot of lime. In order to avoid trou- ble they secured from him a release from the contract but he sent his wagon to the freight station and bought lime out of the car where Moores and Company sold lime to any one who applied.
 union discovered it and a boycott was begun. Moores and Company were prevented from selling to their usual customers any lime or other material for A great number of months and suffered a severe financial loss to their business. They sued for damages. The jury returned a verdict for $2.5oo.
 .Now. gentIemen, in that case I thar A secondary boycott was an un- lawful injury. and that whether it was perpetrated by laboring men or otherwise. That Is the law today and my friends. 1t ought to be the law. know thaa this is not the view of Mir. Gompers. but am glad to know that there is a difference in organized la bor upon this question.
 Another case was the Phelan case. It grew out of the attempt of the Am erican Railway Union and Eugene Debs to starve the country by stopping all the railroads and thus compel ths Pullman Company to pay high CT wages to its employees. Neither the starv- ing country nor the railroads had con- troI over MT. Pullman. Some railroads had ontraets with him for carrying his cars. They were not justified in breaking these contracts In other words. the action against the railroad companies by Debs and by his lieuten- ant, Ph elan, was a secondary boycott.
 At this time the Cincinnati South ern Railroad was being operated by a receiver under my orders as United States Circuit judge. Phelan knew of this and was warned of 1t. He held meetings of the Cincinnati Southern Railway employees and advised them to strike and tie up the road and by hints and winks and side-remarks. he instigated them to violence.
 "On an affidavit charging him with contempt in attempting by such methods to defeat the order of the court directing the receiver to run the road, he was brought into court. The evidence clearly established his guilt therefore I sentenced him to jail for six months.
 Pipe Combination Broken.
 "There was an injunction suit but in which the operation of the injunction was not against laboring people but against a combination of iron pipe manufacturers who. residing in some eleven states, divided up the territory and by their agreements maintained the price of iron pipe at an exorbitant figure, monopolizing the whole pro- duction within those states. and divid- ed the profits of this arrangement be- tween the members of the combina- ton.
 A suit was brought in the circuit court and an application made by the United States for an injunction to en- join the combination from proceeding and to break 1t up. The circuit judge held that there was no power to issue such an injunction and no jurisdiction in the court to grant such remedy.
 T sat in the court of appeals to entertain an appeal by the govern ment from the decision of the circuit court and rendered the opinion of the circuit court of appeals. We there de- cided that an injunction would issue; the injunction did issue and the com bination was broken up.
 ''The case was subsequently, carried to the Supreme Court of the United States and the Judgment was affirm ed.
 ''I merely instance this to show that the injunction works both ways and that 1t is useful both in keeping law less laboring men and law1ess capital ists within the law.
 Another point which is distinotly decided in these cases was that no tenn porary restraining order or Injunction could issue to prevent a mans leaving , the employ of railway and therefore that no injunctions could issue to re- strain men from acting in concert and going on 6 strike.
 Objection is made to the use of the injunction in such disputes. All have 10 say on that point Is that precedent Justfries 1t and the man whose busI- ness Is injured by unlawful action of former employees frequently has no otner remedy which is at all adequate. | CpJection Is made to the issuing opportunity for abuse in such s practice. though there are cases when no other remedy seems adequate. have been willing, neverth eless, to adopt q l rule by which notice shall be required 1 before the issuing of any injunction temporary or otherwise. The Repub. ncan convention, however, thought fl wiser that the best present practice should be embodied in a statute in or. | der to bring the matter to the attention 1 of the court and that that way fur. ther abuses can avoided I hone ana believe that this is true.
 | Opposes Jury Trial.
 "The provision in the Democratic | platform that a trial by jury shall bt allowed in all cases in which a charge of contempt Is made for violation oi | the orders of the court outside of the l presence of the judge would greatly weaken the power of the court. l ITO introduce jury trial between 6