Waterbury evening Democrat., 1908-01-10
TAFT ANSWERS LABOR
Tells Ohio Federation He Favors
 Reform of Injunction.
REPLIES TO QUESTIONS ASKED
Secretary Declares For Right of Work mon to Unite and Admits That Ex Parte Restraining Orders Have Given Rise to Abuses and Injustices.


 Parte Restraining Orders Have Given
 Rise to Abuses and Injustices.
 Martins Ferry, O., Jan. 10.-Secre- tary Taft in letter made public here shows that he has materially modified his views on injunctions.
 He now declares he is opposed to the issuance of ex parte injunctions, which is one of the things that aroused criti-' cism when he was on the federal bench.
 Mir. Taft's views are stated in a let ter in reply to questions propounded by Llewellyn Lewis, secretary of the Ohio Federation of Labor, given out here 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 restraining order may issue and defin- ing ill specific terms the language in which such order may be framed.
 T see no objection to the enactment of statute which shall define the rights of laborers in their cOntroyer sies with their former employers. As this statute would fix the full limits of their action, it would necessarily fur nish a definite rule for determining the cases in which injunctions might issue as we'll as their character and scope.
 Generally the law governing the re- lations between employer and em- ployee is state law and is only en- forced 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, I see no objection to statute which shall so far as possible define the rights of both parties in such contro- versies more accurately. Indeed, the more exactly the law of the limitations on the actions of both parties is under stood the better for them and for the public.
 Second, you ask me what think of a provision that no restraining order or injunction shall issue except after notice to the defendant and a hearing had This was the rule under the fed eral statutes for many years, but it was subsequently, abolished. In the class of cases to which you refer 1 do not see any objection to the re-enact- ment of that federal statute.
 Indeed, 1 have taken occasion to say in public speeches that the power to issue injunctions ex parte has giveL rise to certain abuses and injustice to the laborers engaged in peaceable strike.
 'AIen leave employment on strike; counsel for the employer applies to judge and presents an affidavit aver ring fear of threatened violence and making such case on the ex parte statement that the judge feels called upon to issue a temporary restraining order.
 ''The temporary restraining order is served on all the strikers. They are not lawyers. Their fears are aroused by the process. with which they are not acquainted, and. although their purpose may have been entirely law ful, their common determination to car " 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- ceeoing in their original purpose.
 ''To avoid this injustice. I believe. as have already said. that the fed eral statute might well be made what 1t was originally. requiring notice and a hearing before an injunction issues.
 Third. In answer to your third question. it would seem that It is un- necessary to impose any limitation as to the time for a final hearing if, be- fore an injunction can issue at all, mo- tice and hearing must be given. The third question is relevant and proper only should the power of issuing ex parte injunctions be retained in the court.
 'In such ease I should think it im- minently 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 a hearing there on within a very short space of time. not to exceed. I should say. three or four days"