New-York tribune., 1922-09-13
Swapping the Injunction


Swapping horses while crossing a
stream seemed risky business to
President Lincoln Those critics of
the Daugherty injunction who are
damning the use of the injunction in
any labor CONTROVERSY are urging q
far worse folly, for there is no other
horse to shift to. The injunction Is
the only means the government pos
sesses to prevent a strike that af-
fects the lives of the people from
doing irreparable damage. To aban-
don it now would be to swap horse
for stream.
One of the favorite arguments
urged against the strike injunction
is that England has legislated it out
of existence. America is years be-
hind the times In not following suit,
H}t is asserted. But no nation has
worked out real answer to the gem
eral strike, least Of all England,
which fought one down by main
strength and desperation. What is
wanted is not such back -to-the-wall
strategy, admirable and necessary as
it then was, but q wise and orderly
preventive plan. The undoubted will
and power of the great public not to
be starved or frozen or ruined
through the actions Of small minor
ity must find means to function in
time to forestall all thought of
general strike.
There is Governor Aliens plan.
Therewere various proposals brought
forward in connection with the Esch-
Cumming law. 1t is abundantly
clear to most Americans, we think,
that the key industries of the nation
are so affected by a public interest
that their prolonged shutdown cam
not be tolerated. The same sort Of
right which appears in the right of
eminent domain and allows the tax
Ing Of private property for a public
purpose exists In respect to labor
upon those industries that touch the
life of the nation.
Just how and to what extent the
right to strike must be abridged is
hot clear. The problem is probably
the most difficult one that modern
governments have faced. It goes to
the root Of governmental theory and
1t calls for profound legislative skill.
1t Is possibly true that when this
remedy is devised and in working or
der it will supplant the old writ Of
injunction. But 1t has not been de-
vised. Aside from the injunction
there is no machinery existing to-
day that can be used to hold strike
IN key industry within reasonable
limits and prevent 1t from doing in
caiculable and irretrievable injury to
the public.
We are not speaking of the re-
serve powers Of the government to
act in the event Of general strike
or imminent disaster; there can be
no question OF their existence; but
they are last resort, comparable to
warfare. The injunction is the only
truly peaceful and preventive meas
ure available. 1t was largely de-
veloped by equity courts for the pre-
else purpose Of forestalling damage
which when done could in no fashion
be repaired Or paid for. So far from
being obsolete, it may yet prove to be
the one adequate legal weapon for
coping with these strikes in vital in
dustries.
AT any rate, the Administration is
resorting to perfectly lawful meas.
ure and seeking to use it in the inter
ests Of the whole nation. It's efficacy
in a great strike remains to be
tested. It's existence and legality
and aim are unquestioned. Mr..
Daugherty deserves the support Of
the whole country in his effort to use
thus old weapon against q vaster
peril than it has ever before faced.