The morning journal-courier., 1908-01-10
In Important Letter Answers Labor Federation's In quiries Regarding
 His Stand.
FAVORS ORGANIZED LABOR
Approves Law to Define Scope of Re- straining Order and Hearing of Z Defendant Before Apply
 ing Injunction.

Martins Ferry, O., Jan. 9.-The
 views of William H. Taft, secretary of
 war, in regard to the use and abuse of
 injunctions are stated in a letter in
 reply to questions propounded by
 Llewellyn Lewis, secretary of the Ohio
 Federation of Labor, given out here
 to-day. Secretary Taft prefaces his
 statement with a declaration that he
 believes it to be highly beneficial and
 entirely lawful for laborers to unite
 in their common interests Pro-
 ceeding directly to the answer of the
 questions propounded, he says:
 "First-You ask me what I would
 think of an enactment of law de-
 fining the cases in which a temporary
 restraining order may issue, and de-
 lining in specific terms the language
 in which such order may be framed.
 l see no objection to the enactment
 of statute which shall define the
 rights of laborers in their controver-
 sies with their former employers. As
 this statute would fix the full limits
 of their action it would necessarily
 furnish a definite rule for determin-
 ing the cases in which injunctions
 might issue, as we'll as their charac-
 ter and scope. It should be said that
 this statute, however, if enacted by
 congress could relate only to the Dis
 trict of Columbia or some place within
 the exclusive jurisdiction of the fed
 eral government, or to those employ-
 CTS and employees whose relations are
 within congressional definition and control Generally, the law governing
 the relations between employer and
 employe is a state law and is only en- forced in the federal courts when the Jurisdiction arises by reason of the di- verse citizenship of the parties. Speaking generally, however, both as to federal and state legislation, I see no objection to a statute which shall. so far as possible, define the rights of beth parties In such controversies more accurately. Indeed, the more exactly the law of the limitations on the actions of both parties are under stood the better for them and for the public.
 "second-You ask me what I think or a provision that no restraining or- der or injunction shall issue, except af- ter notice to the defendant and hear Ing had. This was the rule under the 1eceral statutes for many years, but 1t was subsequently, abolished. In the class of cases to which you refer I do not see any objection to tlfe re-enact- ment of that federal statute. Indeed l have taken occasion to say in publ,c speeches that the power to issue in- functions ex parte has given rise to certain abuses and injustice to the la- o'orers engaged in a peaceable strike. Men leave employment on strike: counsel for the employer applies to lucige and presents an affidavit aver ring fear of threatened violence and making such a case on the ex parte statement that the judge feels called apon to issue a temporary restrsin,n, order. The temporary restraining or der is served on all the strik ITS; they are not lawyers; their fears are arous- ed by the process with which they sre,I not acquainted, and, although their purpose may have been entirely law lul, their common determination to carry through the strike is weakened by an order which they never have had an opportunity to question and which Is calculated to discourage their pro- ceeding, in their original purpose. To avoid this injustice I believe, as have said, that the federal statutes might we'll be made what 1t was orig lnally, requiring notice, and a hearing before an injunction issues. I
 "Third--In answer to your question 1t would seem that it is unnecessary to impose any limitation as to the time for a final hearing, if, before an in- junction can issue at all, notice and hearing must be given The third i question is relevant and proper only | should the power of issuing ex-parte injunction be retained, in the court. | In such case, should think it emil nently proper that the statute should require the court issuing an ex-parte injunction to give the person against whom the injunction was issued an | opportunity to have hearing thereon | within very short space of time. not | to exceed, l should say, three or four days
 "Fourth-Your fourth question is In effect, what l would think of nro- | vision in such cases by which the con [emnor-that iss the person charged with the violation of an order of in Iunction-might object to the judge who issued the injunction. as the one | to try the issue, whether the iniunc- lion had been violated, and to fix pun- shment in case of conviction and thereby require another judge to trv he issue and impose sentence if nee sssary. In federal courts in such A ease it would be proper to provide that the senior circuit judge of the circuit should. upon application of the i defendant or contemnor designate an- other district or circuit judge to sit | md hear the issue presented. I do not think such a restriction would be In most cases it would f De unnecessary. But I admit that here is popular feeling that in con empt proceedings, and the very name ,f the proceedings suggests it, that the udge issuing the injunction has a per ional sensitiveness in respect to it's and therefore that he does lot bring to the trial of the issue presented by the charge of contempt