The Monte Vista journal. (Monte Vista, Rio Grande County, Colo.) 1888-1921, 1910-12-31
BRINGING THE LAW
INTO CONTEMPT

INV WIN . G14vB8
All over the state, az The Chief
tain predicted it would be, labor is
stirred to anger by the failing for
ono year OF sixteen union coal
miners from Louisville by Judge
Greeley Whitford Of Denver, on
the charge. OF violating his injunc-
ton. Judge Whitford's action, also
~ predicted by The Chieftain, has
not strengthened respect for the
law; It has brought the law into
contempt. II courts and judges are
losing in the United States the re-
spect in which they were formerly
held, this action Of Judge Whit
iord's il sufficient explanation OF
the fact.
There are several features about
this case that are bound to strike
attention. In The first place, Louis
vile. where the miners were on
strike, is not in Judge Whitford's
judicial district. In issuing his in
junction against the striking min
ers, therefore, he went outside his
jurisdiction. Why did he do it?
Why did the coal companies go to
him instead Of to the Judge Of The
DISTRICT Did they fear the Judge
in whose Jurisdiction Louisville
lies, and who is presumably better
acquainted with actual conditions
than is Judge Whitford, would
not give them what they asked?
Again, the injunction itself seems
to have been entirely uncalled Tor.
The strike has been one OF
the least violent in the history OF
the state. The sheriff OF Boulder
county has repeatedly declared
that he was perfectly able to ham
die the strike: the commissioners
appointed by Governor Shafroth
to examine conditions and report
on the coal companies request for
militia declared that the services
OF the m ational guard were entire
ly unnecessary. Undoubtedly there
were some fist fights; undoubtedly
the miners reasoned with the
strike breakers, and persuaded
many OF them, those who have a
brotherly feeling for fellow-work-
men, to leave the field.
But the strikers were, on the
whole, high class workmen; law
abiding Americans. Some OF them
had lived in Louisville for As much
~ thirty years; most OF them
owned their own homes there.
Compelled, a. they believed, to
strike in order to secure their
rights; witnessing the importation
OF non-union men; denied the arbi-
tration OF their differences which
they sought; facing the necessity
OF leaving the district, and OF sac
rificing the homes into the pur-
chase OF which had gone years OF
their hard-won earnings,-is 1t any
wonder that at times their emo
tions got the better OF them, and
that they roundly cursed the i'm
ported workmen who had taken
their Jobs, and at times met .heJn
In personal combat? Could they,
under the circumstances, have any
high respect for an injunction for
bidding them even from speaking
to the men who had taken their
iobs3
Lastly, Judge Whitford's punish
ment OF the men appears out OF all
reason, when the comparatively
trivial nature OF their offense Ia
considered. At most the assault:
that 10 alleged to have been con-
mitted by the miners was OF no
more serious nature than the fish
cuff encounter that scarcely ever
earns for its participants q police
court sentence OF more than ten
days In Jail. And yet these men
who. At the worst. cursed the strike
breakers, and fought them with
with their fists, must 60 to Jail for
one year.
Small wonder, then, that labor Ia
aroused. II the principle estab-
lishsd BY Judge Whitford In this
case 10 allowed to stand, union
labor In Colorado would seem "a
b dooennd.
n..< ..,1.si~ -.Af-.A ain -