United labor bulletin., 1910-01-07

tlOn. Inere would not nave been the
slightest variation from tine 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 citizens and
representatives of the workers. And that
which applied to the defendants applies
with equal effect to the two million men
and their friends and sympathizers en-
Joined.
A significant fact will be observed that
the president nowhere in his recommend
alton 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 fed
eral law which authorizes any judge to
issue an injunction as injunctions are is
sued in labor disputes. The fact is that
the presidents judgment and recon-
mendation 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
boris contention upon this all-important
question of our time, and we challenge
discussion of the points here submit
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.
sonal rights.
1t must not be used ever in an effort
to punish crime.
There must be no other adequate rem
edy at law.
It must not be used a means to set
aside trial by jury.
Injuncions as issued against work
men 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 fasten an offense on
them when they are innocent of any un-
lawful or illegal act.
It is an indirect assertion of a proper
ty right in men when these men are
workmen engaged in lawful effort to
protect or advance their natural rights
and interests.
Injunctions as issued in trade disputes
are to make outlaws of men when they
are not even charged with doing things
in violation of any law Of state or
nation.
The injunctions which the courts issue
against labor are supposed by them to
be good enough law today. when there
| exists a dispute between workmen and
their employers; but it is not good law
in fact, is not law at all-tomorrow or
next day when no such labor dispute
exists.
The issuance of injunctions in labor
disputes is not based upon law. but is a
species of judicial legislation. judicial
usurpation. in the interests of the money
power against workmen innocent of any
unlawful or criminal act.
The doing of the lawful acts enjoined
by the courts renders the workmen guilty
of contempt of court, and punishable by
fine or Imprisonment or both.
In all things in which workmen are en-
Joined by the process of an injunction
during labor disputes, if those acts are
criminal or unlawful, there is now ample
law and remedy covering them. From
the logic of this there is no escape.
No act is legally crime unless there
is law designating it and specifying it
10 be a crime.
M art ;s unlawful unless there ha a
law on the statute books designating and
specifying it to be unlawful; hence, it
follows that:
No act is criminal or unlawful unless
there is a law prohibiting its commits
sion.
We assert that labor asks no immun-
ity for any of its men who may be guilty
of any criminal or unlawful act.
1t insists upon the workers being re-
garded and treated as equals before the
law with every other citizen; that is any
act be committed by any one of our num-
\ ber, rendering him amenable to the law.
he shall be prosecuted by the ordinary
forms of law and by the due process OF
law. and that an injunction does not law
fully and properly apply and ought not
to be issued in such cases.
The injunction process as applied to
men engaged in dispute with employ
ers includes the allegation of criminal
or unlawful acts, as a mere pretext. so
that the lawful and innocent acts in
themselves may also be Incorporated and
covered by the blanket injunction. And
the performance of the lawful and inno-
cent acts in themselves despite the in
junction renders them at once guilty Of
contempt of the courts order which is
summarily punished by fine or imprison-
ment, or both.
In itself the writ of injunction is of a