New-York tribune., 1908-09-24

der and never did disobey it. The Brotherhood
of 7 locomotive Engineers then repealed the rule
and II has never been enforced since so far as l
know.
THE PHELAN CASE
The third case was the Phelan case. II grew
out of the attempt of the American railway
Union and Eugene Debs to starve the country
by stopping all the railroads and tnus coihpeI
the Pullman company to pay nlgner Wases -
ITS empoves Neither the starving country nor
the railroads had control over Mr.. Pullman some
railroads had contracts with him Tor carrying
his cars They not justified IN oreakine
+bose contracts In other words, the action
against the railroad companies by Deos anu
by his lieutenant Phelan, was seCoIudIy
boycott At this time the Cincinnati southern
Railroad was being operated by a receiver un-
der nv orders as United States CIRCUIT Juoge-
Phelan knew this and was warned OF II; ,ai1 t1e
held meetings of the Cincinnati Southe-n II r>dIl
road employees and advised them to strike anG
tie up the road, and by hints and Wlnks anu
side remarks he instigated them TO violence.
on an afhdavit charging him with contempt IN
attennting by such methods to defeat the order
of court directing the receiver 10 run Ine ,i aoaL,
he was brought into court. The evidence clearly
established his guilt. therefore sentenced MIN
to Jail for six months. ~
There was one more injunction suit to which
I have made reference but in which the opera
tfon of the injunction was not against labor
ing people but against combination OF IRON IRON
nine manufacturers, who residing in some eleNeh
states divided up the territory and by their
agreements maintained the prices OF IRON pipe
at an exorbtant figure monoponzed tne Whole
nrofts of this arrangement between the members
of the combination A suit was brought IN the
circuit court and an application made by the
United States for an injunction TO enjoln tne
combination from proceeding and TO break IL up
The circuit judge held that there was no power
m issr1e such an injunction and no jurisdiction
in the court to grant such a remedy L sat IN
the Court of Appeals to entertain an appeal pY
tbe government from the decision of the circuit
court and rendered the opinion OF the Clrcul
Court of Appeals. We there decided that an
Injunction would issue; the injunction did issue
hTol- 'Ha
,rae s,hsenuently carried to the Supreme Court
of the United States, and the Judgment was az
frmed. l merely instance this 70 show that me
Injunction works both ways. and that IL Is uSeIu
hoth in keeping lawless laboring men and law
less capitalists within the law; ,u,.,,.,o,-
IN indnstrial causes This is not true, The use
of the Injunction was in accordance with prece-
dent in number of cases, whlcn clteo' poth
in the Arthur case and in the Phelan case l am
not anoIogizing for what 1 did in these cases,
fnr thew were in accordance with my duty as a
judge.
PROPER USE OF INJUNCTIONS
Another point which distinctly decided in
these cases was that no temporary restraining
order or Injunction could issue TO prevent a
| mans leaving the employ of railway, and
therefore that injunction could issue 10 re-
strain men from acting in concert and going on
strike.
| in such disputes. All have to say on that point
is thar precedent justifes it. and that the man
those business is injured by unlawful action Of
| which is at all adequate. The owner OF busi-
! ness whether railroad business or any other.
| is entitled to be protected in his pursuit of 1t
| ard TO immunity from unlawful injury TO it, To
| take avay from him the remedy by injunction
| which has always been his. merely because II
| sometimes leads to the punishment or those VINO
violate the Injunction without trial by jury Is 10
! introduce into the law class legislation in favor
! of employes and laboring men, and IT Is TO take
| them out of the ordinary operation OF civil RENE
! dies because they laborers. / say that that
! kind of class legislation is pernicious
| objection is made to the issuing OF inJunc-
+ons without notice. There is opportunity FOR
abuse in such a practice, though there are cases
when no other remedy seems adequate. nave
| been willing, nevertheless, TO adopt rule o!
which notice shall be required before the issuing
of any injunction, temporary or otherwise, Inc
! Rapublican convention. however, thought IL
! wiser that the best present practice should Dc
en- bodied in a statute In order 10 Drlng the
| matter to the attention OF the court, and In
that Uay future abuses could be avoided. i
hone and believe that this is true. Under the
! Republican platform a statute can pass and
| ought 10 pass which shall not allow tenn
| norary restraining order 10 issue and nave errec'
| for more than fortyeight hours, unless near
! ing can be had during that forty-elght nourS
| extending the operation of the injunction.
| The Democratic platform does not give any
| ranoedv with respect to notice. IL merely re-
| selves that injunctions ought not TO be issued
| In Industrial disputes where they would moi
issue In other disputes. This is either meaning
less or deceitful. -. -,
| The provision in the Democratic PLATFORM tina
| a trial by jury shall be allowed IN all cases IN
! which a charge of contempt is MADE TOT Viola
ton OF the orders of court outside OF the pres