The Montgomery advertiser., 1908-01-10
AFTER LABOR VOTE
TAFT TURNED LOOSE MUCH TALK.
Says He Believes It Highly BenehciaI and Entirely Lawful For La
 borers To Unite Them- aeIven.

Martins Ferry, O., Jan. 9-The views of William H. Taft. Secretary of War. regarding the use and misuse of in- functions are stated in a letter in re- ply to questions propounded by Llewei- lyn Lewis. Secretary of the Ohio Fed eration of Labor given out here today Secretary Taft prefaces his statement 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 defin- ing the cases in which a temporary re- straining order may issue. I see no objection to the enactment of a statute which shall define the rights of labor CTS in their controversies with their former employers. As this statute would fix the lawful limits of their action. 1t would necessarily furnish a definite rule for determining the cases in which injunctions might issue as we'll as their character and scope.
 T see no objection to a statute which shall. as far as possible. define the rights of both parties in such contro- versies more accurately. Indeed. the more exactly the lawful limitations on the actions of both parties are under stood. the better for them and for the public.
 f"You ask me what I think of pro- vision that no restraining order or fn- junction shall issue, except after mo- tice to the defendant and a hearing had. Tn the class of cases to which you refer. I do not see any objection to the re-enactment of that Federal stat ute Indeed the power to issue in- functions ex-parte has given rise to certain abuses and injustice to the la borers engaged in a peaceable strike
 Tt would seem that it Is unnecessary to impose any limitation as to the time or a final hearing. if before an injunction can issue at all notice and hearing must be given. The third ques- ton Is relevant and proper only should the power of issuing ex-parte fntunc- tions be retained in the court. Tn such cases I should think it eminently prop CT that the statute should require the court issuing an ex-parte injunction to give the person against whom the injunction was issued an oportunity to have a hearing on it. within a short space of time. not to exceed, I should say. three or four days.
 Your fourth query is, in effect. what I would think of a provision in such cases by which the contemnor might object to the judge who issued the in- junction as to the one to try the issue whether the injunction had been vio- lated, and to fix punishment in case of conviction, and thereby require an- other judge to try the issue and impose sentence if necessary. In Federal courts. it would be proper to provide that the senior circuit judge of the circuit should designate another dis trict or circuit judge to sit and hear the issue presented. There is some analogy between the exclusion of a judge from sitting fin the Court of Appeals to review a decision of his own, which now obtains in the practice of the Federal Court of Appeals by statute and the present suggested case. It is of the highest importance that the authority of the court to enforce It's own orders effectively should not be weakened. and therefore am op- posed to the intervention of a jury be- tween the courts decree and its en- forcement by contempt proceedings. It would mean long delay and greatly weaken the authority of the court. I do not think that the permission to change the judge, however, would con- statute either serious delay or injure the efficacy of the order, while it may secure greater public confidence in the courts action. The appearance of jus tice is almost as important as the ex- istence of 1t in the administration of courts.
 sincerely yours,
 (Signed) william H. Taft"