The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1908-09-24

which he had Issued 70 his men
In respect TO rule No. -. and within q very
short period I gave him q hearing. Mr..
Arthur had promptly complied with my
order and never did disohey u. Ny "
impression always was that Mr.. Arthur
was dad to have II decided that such q rule
as rule 10 was Illegal. At all events the
Brotherhood Of Locomotive Engineers then
repesled the rule and II has never been en-
forced since. 80 far as I know.
! submit that the Brotherhood OF Looo-
motive Engineers IN repeating rule No IL
n condemning the use Of the secondary
boycott In such cases justihes and vindi-
Gates fully the conclusion that l reached In
that case and the action that ! took. tn
repeal OF rule ~ brought the Brotherhood
completely within the law and instead OF
being lawbreakers they became Its con-
SENATORS.
DRps's YIoHr AGAINST PULLMAN COMPANY.
The third case was the Phelan case. II
grew out OF the attempt Of the American
Railway Union and Eugene Debs to starye
the country by stopping all the railroads
and thus compel the Pullman company to
pay higher wages to Its employees. Neither
the starving country nor the railroads has
control over Mr.. Pullman. They had no
power to control him In any way or to COM
pei him to change the terms upon which he
employed his labor. Some railroads had
contracts with him for carrying his cars.
They were not Justified In breaking those
contracts. In other words. the action
against the railroad companies by Debs and
by his lieutenant. Phelan. was q secondary
boycott. At this time the Cincinnati South
ern Railroad, $50 miles. from Cincinnati to
CHATTANOOGA, was being operated by q re-
ceiyer under my orders as United States
Circuit Judge. Phelan knew this and was
warned Of 1t. He held eetinas OF the Gin
cinnati Southern Railroad employees and
advised them to strike and tie up the road
aud by hints and winks n side remark
he ~instigated them to violence and to attack
the men who stayed upon the engines and
who worked the trains and who refused
TO obey his call to leave the railway.
On an afldavit charging him with con-
tempt In attempting by such methods to
defeat the order Of Court directing the re-
oeiver to run the road Phelan was brought
into court. At the same time he was enc
Joined from continuing his obstruction
and the time for hearing OF the contempt
proceedings was set in accordance with
his desire. He employed counsel and for ten
or twelve days 1 tried hi case. Meantime
during the trial he continued his course.
The evidence clearly established his guilt.
His defiance Of the Courts order during the
trial was fragrant and deliberate and tended
to destroy the Courts authority. 1 there
fore sentenced him to J6il for six months.
It was necessary that this man who was
inhicting loss not only upcn the stock
holders Of the road but also upon the pub
lie, who was subjecting to lawless violence
the brotherhood engineers and iremen OF
the road and who was holding the admin
istration of justice UP to contempt. should
be punished In an orderly q
can understand how q man like Deos.
a Socialist tending to anarchy. who believes
that modern society Is established on a
thoroughly wrong basis. that, property
ought to be divided equally. that every
thing ought to be run by the Government,
should be In favor OF such q disturbance as
that which he created by bringing about
the strikes and tying up The railroads as
he did; but ] cannot understand how In
teiligent and law abiding members or the
railroad orders. entertaining the views
which / am told they do entertain will
reference to the boycott and with reference
to violations Of law in Industrial disputes.
can object to the course which was taken
by me In these cases In employing all the
La wful authority ] had to prevent the in
juries which were threatened and to bring
about q lawful stete Of aiairs.
OF TIE DECISIONS.
The law laid down In each OF the labor
oases I have referred to h In accordance
with the policy now pursued by the rail-
road orders. Mr.. Bryan says / am the
father Of injunctions in industrial causes.
This Is not true. The use OF the injunction
was in accordance with precedent In q num-
Der Of cases which ! cited. both In the Ar
thur case snd In the Phelan case.
In there cases I attempted to state with
as great fulness as possible the rights and
wroLgs Of employer and employee In these
labor disputes: that men had the right to
strike: that they had the right and duty
to unite In order that they might present
n solid front against their employer and deal
with him on q level and not be subject to
the disadvantage to which one laborer
would be put In dealing with o powerful
employer: that they had the right to select
their officers instructions with reference
to what they should do: that they had the
right to accumulate funds In order to sup
port those OF their number who had with
drawn from the employ OF the employer:
tina they could withdraw from associa-
ton with their employer and have all their
colleagues do the same thing. but that
they might not injure Che property OF their
employer, and that they might not lnJure
his business by the secondary boycott.
Another point which distinctly decided In
those cases was that no temporary re-
straining order or injunction could issue
to prevent q man leaving the employ Of a
railway, and therefore that no injunctions
could issue to restrain men from acting in
concert and going on a strike.
ABoLIsHIYG INJUNCTION IS CLASS LEoIsLA-
TON.
The owner OF q business, whether rail-
road business or any other. is entitled 10
be protected In his pursuit OF IL and to i'm.
munity from unlawful injury to II. To
take away from him the remedy by injunc.
ton which has always been his. merely
because II sometimes leads to the punish
ment without q trial by jury OF those who
violate the Injunction Ii to introduce into
the law class legislation In favor Of EN-.
ployees and laborine mon. and IL Is to take
them out Of the ordinary operation OF civil
remedies because they are laborers.
1 say that that kind Of class legislation
Ia pernicious: that laborers themselves
ought not to wish II: that IL weakens the
powers Of the court which are just as neces'
sary to the preservation OF the rights oil
laborers as Of other persons. and that II Is q
short sighted policy. The weakening OF
the power Of the courts will not be taken
advantage OF 80 much by the laboring man
rs by the rich vio'a' II the law. because
he can employ cur and astute counsel
to enable him to .-... advantage OF every
such weakness. ,y
Objection is made to the issuing Of In
functions without notice. have beer
willing to adopt O rule by which notice anal
be required before the issuing OF any In
junction. temporary or otherwise. The