United labor bulletin., 1910-01-21

]
spectful and thoughtful consideration;
when that utterance is officially COM
municated to Congress with a recomen-
dation for its enactment into law it be-
comes of still greater Importance. The
presidents recommendation should be
read and re-read, each thought very care
fully weighed in relation to the other,
and the test of fact and experience ap-
piled thereto.
For instance, of what practical use
would the enactment of a law based
upon the presidents recommendation
Isove? What tangible reform or relief
would be achieved? There has not been
an injunction granted by any of the
courts, Federal or State, but that was
based on the complainant's allegation
to the courts satisfaction" that unless
the injunction was granted ''irreparable
injury would follow.
Take the case of the Bucks Stove and
Range company against the American
Federation OF Labor, its officers, its afiil-
lated organizations, their two million
members and friends. That company, in
its petition for the injunction, alleged
that unless the writ was granted it
would suffer 'irreparable injury" That
/ company sought and obtained its injunc-
ton from Justice Gould after notice"
and hearing and yet the outrageous
Injunction forbidding and enjoining free
speech and free press was issued, under
which three American citizens were SEN
fenced to long terms of Imprisonment.
1t is true that the Court of Appeals later
modified the terms of the injunction. but
the same court held that no matter what
the original and unmodified injunction
forbade Mitchell, Morrison and Gompers
were compelled to obey.
Justice Wright declared that he placed
the matter at bar distinctly on the prop
osition that were the order confessedly
erroneous yet it must have been obeyed."
The Court of Appeals of the District of
/ Columbia. in affirming Judge wrights
decision and sentence, declared that the
decree became final and binding judg-
ment against the defendants until re-
versed or modified on appeal" It is not
the contention that in the case which we
are discussing the matters involved
were erroneous" confessedly or other
wise. but that the injunction of Justice
Gould was without warrant. authority
or Jurisdiction in that it invaded and de-
MED the constitutionally guaranteed
rights of free speech and free press. and
] therefore the decree was void.
Let us suppose that the presidents
recommendation had been the law when
the Bucks Stove and Range company
petitioned Justice Gould for the injunc-
ton. There would not have been the
slightest variation from the procedure
in the injunction. or in the contempt
case which arose out of it There would
not have been scintilla of protection
to the defendants of their rights as citi-
zens and representatives of the workers
And that which applied to the defend
ants applies with equal effect to the two
million men and their friends and sympa-
thizers enioined.
A significant fact will be observed that
the president nowhere in his recommen-
dation makes reference TO any existing
law to be amended. no statute altered
to accomplish his expressed purpose. In
deed. one would look in vain for any
Federal law which authorizes any judge
to issue an injunction as injunctions are
issued in labor disputes. The fact is
that the presidents Judgment and rec
ommendation are based. not on the law,
but on the practice" And it is this
very practice which is not statute law.
but judge-made law.
We ask a careful consideration of la
bor's contention upon this allimportant
question of our time. and we challenge
ted Labor insists that:
The writ of injunction was intended to
be exercised for the protection of prop
erty rights only.
He who would seek its aid in equity
must do equity and must come into court
with clean hands.
1t must never be used to curtail per-
sonal rights.
1t must not be used ever in an effort
to punish crime.
= There must be no other adequate rem
edy at law.
1t must not be used as a means to set
aside trial by jury.
Injunctions as issued against workmen
are never used or issued against any
other citizen of our country.
1t is an attempt to deprive citizens OF
our country. when these citizens are
workmen. of the right of trial by jury.
1t is an effort to fasteu an oifense on
them when they are innocent of any un-
lawful or Illegal act.
1t is an indirect assertion of a proper
ty right in men when these men are
workmen engaged in a lawful effort to
protect or advance their natural rights
and interests