The Birmingham age-herald., 1908-01-10
Questions PrOpoundsd bI Ssc- retaTy of Labor Organiza-
 ton Are Answered
UNION OF LABORERS
 IS ENTIRELY LAWFUL

gross Framing an Injunction Law
 Which Will Define Rights
 of Contenders.
 Martins Ferry, Ohio January 9.-The views of William II. Taft. secretary of war, regarding the use and misuse of injunctions are stated in letter in re- ply to questions propounded by Llewlyn Lewis, secretary of the Ohio Federation of Labor, given out here today. Sec retary Taft prefaces his statement with a declaration that he believes, it to be highly beneficial and entirely lawful for laborers to unite in their common interests
 Proceeding directly to the answer of the questions propounded, he says. First. You ask me what I would think of an enactment of a law defining the cases in which a temporary restraining order may be issued and defining in specific terms the language in which such order may be framed. ] see no objection to a stat ute which will define the rights of la- borers in their controversies with their former employers. As this statute would fix the lawful limits of their action, it would necessarily furnish q definite rule for determining the cases in which injunc- tions might issue as well as their char acter and scope. It should be said that any statute however, if enacted by Con- gress could relate only to the District of Columbia or some place within the eX- elusive jurisdiction of the federal gov ernment or to thnse employers and em- ployes whose relations are within Con- gressional definition and control. Gen orally the law governing the relations be- tween employers and employees is state law, and is only enforced in the federal courts when the question of the jurisdic- ton arises by reason of the diverse citi- zenship of the parties. Speaking gener- ally, however, both as to federal and state legislation, I see no objection to statute which shall, so far as possible, define the rights of both parties in such controversies more accurately. Indeed, the more exactly the lawful limitations on the actions of both parties are un- derstood, the better for them and for the public.
 injunction After Notice.
 "Second You ask me what l think of a provision that no restraining order or in- Junction shall issue, except after notice to the defendant and hearing mad. This was the rule under the federal statutes for many years but 1t was sup sequently abolished. In the class of cases to which you refer, l do not see any objection to the re-enaction of that federal statute. Indeed, have taken occasion to say in public speeches that the power to issue injunctions eX-parte has given rise to certain abuses and injustice to the laborers following good and peaceable strike. Leaving en- ployment on a strike, counsel for the em- ployer applies to judge and presents an affidavit averring of threatened vio- lence and making such case on ex-parte statement that the judge feels called upon to issue a temporary restraining order The temporary restraining order is served on all the strikers; they are not lawyers, their fears are aroused by the process with which they are not ac- ouainted and although their purpose may have been entirely lawful their common determination to carry through the strike is weakened by an order which they have never had an opportunity to ques- tion and which is calculated to discour- age their proceeding in their original pur- pose To avoid this injustice, l believe as I have already said, that the federal statute might well be made what 1t was originally, requiring notice when an in- junction is issued.
 Third In answer to your question, It would seem that it is unnecessary 10 impose any limitation as to the time for a final hearing, if before an inJunc- tion can issue at all, notice and hearing must be given. The third question Is relevant and proper only should the pow CT of issuing ex-parte injunction be re- tained in the court. In such cases should think it eminently proper that the statute should require the court issuing an ex-parte injunction to give the per son against whom the injunction was 1s- sued an opportunity to have hearing of it within a short space of time, not to exceed, I should say, three or four days.
 Objection To Judge.
 "Fourth: Your fourth query is in ef- feet. what l would think of a provision in such cases by which the contemnor, that Is the person charged with the viola ton of an order of injunction, might ob- feet to the judge who issued the in function as the one to try the issue whether the injunction had been Vlo- lated, and to fix punishment in case or conviction and require the judge to try the issue and impose sentence II neces- sary. In federal courts in such a case it would be proper to provide that the senior circuit judge of the circuit, should, upon the application of the defendant or contemnor. designate another district or circuit judge to sit and hear the issue presented. l do not think such a re- striction would be unreasonable. In most cases. it would be unnecessary But admit that there is a popular feeling that in contempt proceedings and the very name of the proceeding suggests it, that the judge issuing the injunction has a personal sensitiveness in respect to it's violation and the referee that he does not bring to the trial the issue presented by the charge of contempt of his order, the calm judicial mind which insures Justice I think that this popular feel ing. is in most cases, unfounded, but l believe that it Is better where it can he done without injuring the authority