New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1908-10-27

as have had in Brooklyn I would not, But
decided the cases under my oath a Judge &C
cord1ng to the constitution and the laws and
according to the evidence as it was brought be
fore me. and issued injunctiOns when 1 be-
Heved that the plaintiff entitled to in
junction against the defendant. and 1t did not
make any difference to me whether the plain
TIL was a labOring man or a business man or q
corporation, or whatever the defendant was.
And when l issued injunction against the
defendant and he did not obey ii he got hurt
And if he had not been made to understand by
my act under those circumstances the necessity
for maintaining the authority of the court. and
1 had been influenced by the fact that he was
IaDorlnS man or a corporation or any class
exerting political power, I should not be worthy
10 stand here and ask for your suffrages as
President Of the United States
I did issue injunctions l issued them in cases
arising under the antitrust law. 1 don't think
it too much TO say that 1 wrote the opinion
upon which has been based the prosecution Of
all the great trusts since that time | issued
injunCtons against labor organizations, and
propose, if I may for a short moment, to dis
cuss what those injunctions We're.
Mr.. Bryan says 1 am the father of tnjunC-
lions. Well, as injunctions We're in force three
hundred or four hundred years before was
born, that antedates me somewhat He says l
am the father Of injunCtOns in industrial dis
putes Well as half a dozen of those had issued
some time before l went on the bench, cannot
claim to be an inventor in that respect. But
issued-the first case is always treated if It
were an injunction suit, while, as matter Of
fact it was not. 1t a suit for damages be-
fore jury. MoOres & Co were lime dealers.
The Bricklayers' Union had fight and strike
with a boss briCklayer. 1t notified every ma
terial man in Cincinnati that it would boycott
any material man that sold materials to the
boss bricklayer. MOores & Co. unCOnsCiOusly
did so, and walking delegate found il out.
A boycott was declared against Moores & Co.
Their business was destroyed-a valuable one.
They brought suit before a jury, and ! was
the judge that charged the jury, and told them
that that was secondary boycott; that it was
attempt to involve third person in an in
dustriaI controversy by duresS. in respect to
which he had no normal relation, and that any
injury that grew out Of that the person injured
might recover for in a suit for damages against
the nerson instItuting the boycott. That was
the law then; it Is the law now; it is so decided
Icy every Supreme Court in the United States,
and the Supreme Court Of the United States.
and it ought to be the law
Not only that, but the best labor unions to-
day recognize that the of q secondary boy
colt in industrial disputes is very bad policy
It is the use Of an un-American and un-Repuh-
be stamped out Mr.. Samuel GOmpers to the
contrary Observation-Disclosures he Is asking Con-
gress and has been for the last five years. to
pass an act IegaliZinR bOyCOttS.
Now the second case was this. Mr.. ?. NJ.
Arthur was the chief Of the Brotherhood of LO-
connective Engineers. He was one of the greatest
labor leaders they ever had IN this country, and
his brotherhood has always been one of the
most useful and of the most intelligently
conducted and one OF the most successful But
they made one mistake. They had what they
called secret rule II" and under that rule
the engineers con a connecting line were directed
not to haul the cars of line with whom the
brotherhood had strike.
The Toledo & Ann Arbor road had 4 strike
with the brotherhood. II heard that the Lake
Shore was going to refuse TO haul the cars of
that line because Of the difference with their
engineers it filed - bill for injunction To
compel the Lake Shore to haul the cars. its
officers and its employees. The injunction was
issued by Judge Kicks. subsequently Mr.. Ar
! thur issued telegram to the engineers Of the
Lake Shore. calling their attention II rule 10
and in effect directing them as engineers TO
refuse to haul the
The statute OF the United States provides. in
the Interstate commerce law, that any railway
corporation. any officer or any emplOye of a
railway corporation refusing to haul the Of
a connecting line shall he subject to fine and
imprisonment. 1t notified to me I'm a proper
form by petition that Mr.. Arthur had issued that
telegram to his engineers on the Lake Shore
road. and | issued order to him requiring
telegram. He was law abiding man. And the
case was then heard at length and the order
sustained. II never has been reversed to this
day. There q right Of appeal. If anybody
had desired take it. But bound to say
that the order took the alternative course. You
know Il man may either appeal from Judgment
or go down to the corner grocery ard damn the
Judge They took that course. l was held up
to execratiOn a man who had violated all the
laws and had oppressed trade unionism and
made it impossible to exist II was represented
that l have entoined a man TO continue in the
service, and had prevented him from striking
Now as matter Of fact. I wrote a very care
fully prepared opinion. I suppose IL was toe
have read it. 1t must have been, else the
chiefs of the orders would have read It, The
truth is if IT had not been so long l would not
! be here engaged in the somewhat unusual bust
/ ness of eKpOunGlng my own decisions But In
! that case l laid down these principles which
! think had never been collated and stated in
! this way before. although they were the existing
law.