Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1908-01-10
TELLS Where He Stands
| on Injunction Question.
Power to Issue Ex-Parte In
junction Hurts the Lahorer.
Thinks Appearance Of Justice I'M
portant In the Courts.

Martins Ferry. Ohio. 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 i'll
reply 70 questions propounded by
Llewellyn Lewis. secretary Of the Ohio
Federation of Labor, given out here
today. 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" Proceeding
directly TO the answer of the questions
propounded he says:
First, YOU ask me what I would
think Of an enactment of law defin-
ing the cases in which temporary re-
straining order may issue. and defining
In specific terms the language in which
such order may be framed. I see no
OF jecti"ns to the enactment of statute
which shall define the rights of labor
ers in their controversies with their
former employers. As this statute
would fix the full limits of their action
it would necessarily furnish a definite
rule for determining the cases in which
injunctions might issue, as well as
their character and scope.
att should be said that this statute.
however, If enacted by Congress could
relate only to the District of Columbia
or some place within the exclusive
Jurisdiction of the federal government
or to those employers and employees
whose relations are within congression-
al definition and control. Generally
the law governing the relations be-
tween employer and employ is a state
law and is only enforced in the federal
courts when the jurisdiction arises by
reason of the diverse citizenship of the
parties.
speaking generally. however. both
as to federal and state legislation. |
see no objection to statute which
shall so far as possible define tine rights
of both parties in such controversies
more accurately. Indeed. the more ex-
actly the law of the limitations on tire
actions of both parties are understood.
the better for them and for the public.
.'Second-YOu ask me what I think
of a provision that no restraining or
der or injunction shall issue. except
after notice to the defendant and a
hearing had This was the rule under
the federal statutes for many years.
but it was subsequently abolished. In
the class of cases to which YOU refer
7 do not see any objection to the re-
enactment of that federal statute. In
deed have taken occasion to say in
public speeches that the power to is
sue injunctions eX parte has given rise
to certain abuses and injustice to the
laborers engaged in peaceable strike.
Men leave employment on strike:
counsel for the employer applies to
judge and presents an affidavit aver
ing fear of threatened violence and arc
making such a case on the ex partc
statement that the judge feels called
upon to issue & temporary restraining
order. The temporary restraining or
der is served on all the strikers: they
are not lawyers; their fears are ahous-
ed by the process with which they
are not acquainted and although their
purpose may have been entirely law
ful. their common determination to
carry through the strike is weakened
by an order which they have never
had an opportunity to question and
which is calculated to discourage their
in their original purpose
To avoid this injunction I believe. as
have already said, that the federal
statutes might we'll he made what 1t
was originally, requiring notice and
hoarirg before an injunction issues.
"Thrd-1n answer to your third ques-
impose any limitation as to the time for
a final hearing If. before an INDUCTION
can issue at all. notice and hearing must
be given. The third question is relevant
and proper only should the power of is
suirg ex-parte injunctions be retained in
the court. In such case I should think
it eminently proper that the statute
should require the court issuing IN ex-
parte injunction to give the person
against whom the injunction was issued
an opportunity to have a hearing there
of within n very short space Of time. not
to exceed, 1 should say, three or four
days
"Fourth-Your fourth query is in effect
what I would think Of n provision in such
cases by which the contemnor-that is.
the person charged with the violation of
an order of injunction-rnight object to
the judge who issued the injunction. as
the one to try the issue, whether the
injunction had been violated, and to fix
punishment in case of conviction. and
thereby require another judge to try the
issue and impose sentence If necessary.
I'm federal courts in such case it
would be proper to provide that the SEN
Tor circuit judge of the circuit should
upon the application of the defendant or
designate another district or
circuit Judge to sit and hear the issue
presented I do not think such restric-
ton would be unreasonable. In most
cases 1t would be unnecessary. But l ad-
nit that there is popular feeling that
in contempt proceedings and the very
name of the proceeding suggests it, that
the Judge issuing the injunction has
personal constituencies in respect to its
violation and. therefore. that he does not
bring to the trial of the issue presented
by the charge of contempt of his order
the calm judicial mind which insures JUS
tice. I think that this popular feeling Is
in most cases unfounded. but l believe
that It is better where it can be done
without injuring the authority of the
court and the efficiency of its process, to
grant such a privilege to the contemnor
and thus avoid an appearance of injustice
even at some Inconvenience in the matter