The labor journal. [volume] (Everett, Wash.) 1909-1976, 1913-10-10

u ODGEH.
AS everybody else is doing it the
Journal proposes to horn in and make
few remarks about the Judge
Humphries' case which has held the
center of the boards for a month past.
We have watched developments as
| they have arisen with a great deal of
interest, not entirely due to the
spectacular nature of the proceedings
For, aside from all the turmoil and
confusion a great question has been
involved. That question was the
abuse of the writ of injunction. Labor
holds this cardinal theory: That
writ of injunction should not issue in
labor disputes when there is other
adequate remedy at law. Any dis
cussion of the Seattle events misses
fire if it does not stick to the injunc-
tion issue. Eugene V. Debs went to
prison in defiance Of a labor injunc.
ton. Gompers, Morrison and Mitchell
defied the courts and refused to re-
tract a single sentence. Why? Be
cause these men held the issuance
of injunctions, without jury trial,
without recourse to the ordinary pro-
cesses of law, to be assumption of
legal power never granted by the
constitution, without legal sanction or
moral right
Judge Humphries enjoined certain
people from speaking on certain
streets in the city of Seattle. Secure
in the belief that they were breaking
no state statute nor city ordinance,
these people violated the injunction.
Then began the wholesale jailing for
contempt of court and the ridiculous
spectacle of a judge upon the bench
acting the part of buffoon or a
kings jester. In the first instance if
the street speakers were violating any
law, the entire police force of Seattle,
the sheriff's deputies, or state troops,
if necessary, were at command to see
that the offenders were punished.
None of these forces were called
upon, the ordinary process of law
never invoked. Why an injunction
in the first place? The process of in
junction was intended originally to
be used only to prevent destruction of
or damage to property or protection
of life and limb. Its use has been
stretched to cover every imaginable
happening This whole fight pri-
marily is being waged to restore the
injunction to its only proper use.
Bearing that in mind, it is folly to
think that Judge Humphries' dis
charge of the prisoners settles any
thing. 1t settles nothing.
We may have our own opinion
about the judgment, or lack of it.
shown by the men and women who
filled the Seattle Jail. Our opinion on
that matter is entirely aside the ques-
ton. They considered, most of them
at least, that the surest way to focus
public opinion upon some of the
weaknesses of our judicial system,
was by filling the jails. Let it go at
that, whether they were right or
wrong in their choice of methods.
The fact has been emphasized that the
injunction is court weapon that
sadly needs modification In the
hands of a weak or corrupt judge land
we do not believe Judge Humphries
/ is corrupt" in the sense that either
money or any other form of re-
muneration can sway him), it is
4 power of destruction that never should
! be granted Again, if anybody ever
argues with you against the recall
of judges" you can close the argu-
ment and win the debate by uttering
just two words-Judge Humphries.
Judge Humphries ought to be off the
bench, yet seems to be fastened as
securely in his seat as if he was
nailed to it. If out of this whole un-
savory mess shall come a unity of
sentiment among the people in favor
of judicial recall and against abuse of
the injunction writ Judge Humphries
will after all have been an instrument
of some good And the men, women
and children who lay in the King
county Jail win have rendered signal
service to their fellows