The labor argus. [volume] (Charleston, W. Va.) 1906-1915, 1908-07-23

ions upon the issuing of labor in
functions as blind and ground
less attack upon the courts. That
the subject should be discussed
with such bitterness seems to them
quite unaccountable. Others,
with slightly better knowledge,
suppose that the whole agitation
arises from a few isolated and
sensational cases of abuse.
The better informed can recall
instances in which some over-zeal-
Gus judge has issued an order re.
straining the men from walking
through the streets, from holding
public meetings, or from giving
financial relief to the families of
those on strike. Such injunctions
as these-prohibiting lawful acts
have been pretty generally con-
demned. But the thing little .un-
derstood, outside the labor move
ment itself, is the way in which
Injustice to the men on strike may
be worked, even where the injunct
ION seeks to restrain them only
from from acts Of unlawful violence
and intimidation
In the first instance, the re-
straining order is granted by the
court after having heard one side
only, the theory being that it is
an extreme remedy made necces.
sary to prevent threatened de-
struction Of life or property. 1t
is usually addressed to the officers
OF the union by name and person
ally served upon them; but it also
applies, in general terms, to all
mem bers of the union and sympa-
thizers.
At the time when the order is
sues, the usual situation is this:
The strikers have pickets stationed
III the streets approaching the
factory, for the purpose of explain
ing the strike to any who may
seek work there. This picketing,
be it observed, has been held by
the courts to be lawful so long as
persuasion only is resorted to and
there is no violence or intimida-
ton. And violence and intimida-
ton are, of course, punishable
under the criminal law, whether
an injunction is in force or not.
The employers, on the other hand,
nave usually secured few strike
breakers to take the place of the
men, have appealed to the police
for protection, and have employed
detectives to watch the strikers and
report cases of violence, intimida-
ton or breach of the Injunction
order.
Now with the men, the strike is
a most serious thing. To win or
lose involves the very livelihood of
their families. No doubt the more
hot-headed may be tempted to
violence. The detectives and
strike breakers, on the other hand.
are most reckless men, and they
know that their work will be
Judged by its result. 1t is their
business to break the strike, and
an injunction has once been issued.
they are under temptation to per-
Jure themselves in order to prove a
violation
In the absence of an Injunction
the men are deferred from violence
or intimidation, and the strike
breakers are deferred from violence
or perjury by the provisions of the
criminal law; but the moment an
Injunction is obtained, the strikers
feel that they are put in an unfair
and unequal position. They fear
to do lawful picketing. They
know that if an unfounded charge
should be brought against one of
them for alleged acts of violence in
disregard of the injunction, he
would be deprived of the safe
guards which are thrown about
other persons who are accused of
crime. He would be brought be-
fore the judge by whom the order
was issued, charged not with
crime, but with contempt of
court" His case would be heard
by the judge only. The ancient
right to trial by jury would be
denied him, even though the act
charged is such as to come within
the penal code. The rule of
criminal law that the accused must
be proved guilty "'beyond a rea-
sonable doubt' would not apply
to him. He would be convicted
and sent to Jail by mere pre-
pondence of evidence such as is |
required to obtain a money Judge
ment.
There, in substance, are the