New-York tribune., 1908-07-30
THE ATTACK UPON THE COURTS.

AS was TO be expected from one Of his expert
ence and standing on the bench, Mr.. Taft nowhere
in his speech of acceptance appears to better ad-
vantage than in his discussion of the reforms IN
judicial procedure proposed by the two parties
The Democratic platform declaration that IN
functions should not be issued in any cases
'in which injunctions would not issue If no
industrial dispute were involved is utterly
vague and ambiguous. AS Mr. Taft points out,
it is intended to convey TO the mind of the
union labor man the impression that the Demo-
cratic party favOrs the prohibition of the use Of
the Injunction in Industrial disputes, while it is
intended to reassure others with the impression
that the party is opposed to any distinction be-
tween the use of injunctions in such disputes
and in other cases. It either means the ending
of injunctions in labor troubles or it means 10
change at all in the existing practice, according
to the way it is looked at.
The Republican plan of reform. on the con-
trary is clear and definite In all cases where
If is possible whether of an industrial or other
character. the party favors prohibiting the issue
of iniunctiOns upon eg pGrte statements. 1t
urges that notice and hearing shall be given
to the party whom 1t is proposed to enJoln,
unless such delay be likely to defeat the pur-
nose of the Injunction, and that where re
straining order Is issued without hearing, to
prevent irreparable damage, it shall be opera
tive for only a very short period. The Demo-
cratic platform provides for no notice and hear
ing In Injunction cases, and unless it means to
do away entirely with the use of the writ in
labor disputes It offers the laboring man moth
ing If it does mean that, 1t aims to create a
class with the special privilege Of destroying
property and property rights with full legal
mpunity.
A still more dangerous attack upon the courts
than this if the Democratic Injunction plank is
interpreted to mean what Mr.. GomperS under
stands 1t to mean, is the declaration for a trial
by jury in contempt cases Mr. Taft analyZes
in a very clear way the effect of this weakening
of the power of the courts TO enforce their or
ders. Here is one example of.the way it would
work:
A suit may be tried in the court Of first in
stance and carried to the Court of Appeals, and
thence to the Supreme Court, and a judgment
and decree entered and an order issued, ana
then if the decree involves the defendants do
ing anything not doing anything. and he dis
-obeys it the plaintiff who has pursued his rem
edies in lawful course for years must. to secure
his rights, undergo the uncertainties and the
delays of a jury trial before he can enjoy that
which is his right by the decision of the high
est court Of the land say Wltnout hesitatioh %
that such q change viii greatly impair the in
dispensabIe power and authority OF the courts
The Intervention of jury in contempt cases
would not in any way benefit the poor working
man. On the contrary. Mr.. Taft says, "the
lit is the wealthy and unscrupuous defendant,
able to employ astute and cunning counsel and
anxious to avoid Justice.
He is the man who, after his case had been
carried TO the highest court in the land, would
disobey that courts order and then demand
Jury trial. A jury trial would only add an
other to the laws delays, and who is it that
profits by the laws delays the poor litigant or
the rich? Mr.. Taft is willing that another
Judge than the one against whom the contempt
was directed should sit at the hearing for CON
tempt. This would secure a trial free from all
possible bias and would not weaken the power
of the courts TO enforce their orders, but of the
Democratic suggestion for jury trial of con
tempt Mr. Taft justly says Never in the
history of the country has there been such an
"insidious attack upon the judicial system as
the proposal to interiect a jury trial between
AL orders of the court made after full hearing
and the enforcement of such orders