Evening star., 1909-03-11
COURT OF APPEALS
ALTERS THE ORDER


Continued from First Page)
all Of whom would be Impossible. In
. such n case IL has been held that a num-
ber of members may be made parties de-
= fendant as representative OF the class.
. We think it clear in this case that the
?. named members of the Federation fully
represent its membership, and that service
upon them is sufficient
Wording Of Modified Decree.
: Mr.. Justice Rebb directs that the modi-
: fed decree shall read as follows:
'Tt Is adjudged. ordered and decreed.
;. that the defendants. Samuel Gompers.
Frank Morrison. John B. Lennon. James
Duncan John Mitchell. James OConnell,
:: Max Morris Dennis A. Hayes, Daniel J.
Keefe. William D. Huber. Joseph F.
Valentine. Rodney L. Thixton. Clinton o.
Buckingham. Herman c. Poppe, Arthur
l.. Williams, Samuel r. Cooper and Ed
ward j.. Hickman. individually
and % as 1,eprese,ns representatives OF .,'dr the
their and each OF their servants
and confederates be. and they here
by are perpetua1iy restrained and enJoin-
ed from conspiring combining to boy
colt the business or product of complain
ant and from threatening or declaring
any boycott against the said business or
product and from abbetting aiding or as
sisting in any such product. and from
directly or indirectly threatening. CO.
ercing or intimidating any person or per-
sons whomsoever from buying, selling or
otherwise dealing In compliments pro-
duct. and from printing the complainant,
its business or product, In the we dom
patronize' or unfair list Of defendants
I'm furtherance Of any boycott against
complainant's business or product and
from printing the complainant its busi-
ness or product in the we don't patronize'
or unfair list of defendants in further
ance. and from referring either in print
or otherwise to complainant. its business
or product as In said We Don't Patronize'
or Unfair list In furtherance of any such
boycott
Mr.. Justice Van Orsdel Concurs.
IT concur fully" says Mr.. Justice Van
Orsdel. 'in the conclusion reached by my
associate, Mr.. Justice RObb. l do not
desire to take issue with the reasoning
employed by him In arriving at that con-
clusion. Hence, what l may say will be
rather ip addition TO. than in criticism Of,
anything that appears in the opinion.
1T is insisted that the decree of the
court below deprives the defendants of
the right of freedom of contract, of free
speech and of a free press, as guaranteed
in the federal Constitution. 1t this con-
tention Is well founded 1t is clear that
court Of equity cannot be used for such
a purpose. The equitable writ of In
junction is an agency placed in the hands
of the court to protect rights and restrain
wrongs where the law Is remediless. but
it should never be used as an instrument
of oppression. This great writ for the
enforcement Of equitable rights was not
intended to be used as a short cut to
escape the Inconvenience of suit at
law, with the chances involved in sub
mitting the issue to the Judgment of a
jury Where there is legal redress and
a right of trial by jury court OF equity
is powerless to intervene and deprive the
citizen of that right, except to avoid a
multiplicity of suits, or where the legal
remedy is inadequate. The guaranty OF
freedom of speech and freedom of the
press was placed in the Constitution to
prevent government censorship as prac-
ticed at that time in many of the gov
ernments of Europe. That. therefore,
which was placed In the organic law, to
freedom and general welfare of the peo-
pie, is hardly susceptible of notification
by judicial decree.
Step Across the Danger Line.
THE courts of the United States will be
they were created only so long as they
are content to interpret the laws in con-
formity with the limitations Of the Con-
restrictions is a step across the danger
line and will. Of necessity, lead to Judi
cial arrogance, tyranny and oppression.
II, in any particular. he have outgrown
the Constitution. the remedy is plain and
simple. 1t 10 within the power OF the
people to amend it. but this prerogative
is not reposed in the courts.
1T must be remembered, however, that
there is point where the right OF free
speech and a free press ends and unlaw-
NJ
erty rights begins. When the citizen
passes this point he can no longer claim
the protection Of the Constitution. 1t
protects no one in uttering or disseminat-
ing slanderous or libelous matter A citi-
zen cannot invoke the protection of the
constitutional guaranty of free speech
and free press to destroy the right Of
property secured to his neighbor by the
same instrument. There is nothing COM
planned of In this case for which there is
not q specific legal remedy provided. Hence.
the only excuse for court of equity TAX
ing jurisdiction is because the legal reme-
dy is Inadequate to prevent irreparable in
jury and avoid a multiplicity of suits.
This is the one instance when equity ju-
risdiction will be assumed and exercised
with the utmost caution, not assuming
anything that can be avoided. or taking
Jurisdiction where the legal remedy Is at
all adequate. i agree, however. that
within these limitations the record pre-
sents q case calling for equitable re-
lief
Pleasing to Labor Leaders.
The portion Of Mr.. Justice Van Ors-
del's decision that is said to please the
labor leaders, after quoting Justice
Gould's injunction order, reads: "The
sustaining of such a decree by court
of equity would violate the constitu-
tional rights of the citizen. 1t would
mark the beginning of the era of judi
cial tyranny by the branch of the gov
ernment charged with the duty of pro-
tecting the citizen in his constitutional
and legal rights The clause in the Con-
stitution guaranteeing free speech and
a free press was placed there to prevent
a repetition of the abuses that had
grown up In the monarchies of Europe
government censorship of the press 1t
is folly to assert that this provision of
the Constitution is mere inhibition on
Congress from passing any law abridg-
ing the freedom of speech and the free
dom of the press. 1t forbids govern
ment censorship in all forms, and 1t
would be difficult to conceive of a more
effective method of establishing a gov
ernment censorship than through the
writ of Injunction. For the violation of
its commands the contemnor can be
dealt with in the most summary manner
tried. adjudged and sentenced by the
judge whose order has been dsoheyed.