The Connecticut labor news., 1922-04-21

WOrkmcn might do or say when on strike?
 Two men standing together on the sidewalk could be interpreted as i'm peding if the judge so desired, and as for threats, or intimidation of any sort, or fraud, or deception, almost any statement concerning the strike made to an enploye or to those seek ing employment could be construed as coming under these inhibitions. The strikers, unfamiliar with legal 1 phraseology, knowing, if they are cited for contempt, that no jury will be permitted to pass upon the facts, are intimidated by the phraseology l and deterred from doing anything to protect their interests because of the indefinite language used, which they realize the court can interpret in any manner satisfactory to itself, be- cause the wording of the injunction has failed to convey the clear, direct implication and interpretation of the language used
 The language of many lnjunctions resembles nothing so much as a cat playing with mouse; the cat makes all of the rules.
 One of the strongest indictments which has been written relative to
 
 was presented by Henry Clay Cald- we'll, former presiding judge of the United States Circuit Court of Ap- peals for the eighth circuit In part he said:
 The modern writ of injunction is used for purposes which bear no more resemblance to the users of the ancient writ of that name than the milky way bears to the sun. Form erly 1t was used to conserve the prop erty in dispute between private liti- gants, but in modern times 1t has taken the place of the police powers of the state and nation It enforces and restraints with equal facility the criminal laws of the state and nation. With 1t the judge not only restrains and punishes the commission of crimes defined by statute, but he pro- ceeds to frame criminal code of his own, as extended as he sees proper, by which various acts, innocent Ill law and morals, are made criminal; such as standing, walking, or march ing on the public highway, or talk CT like acts. In proceedings for con- tempt for an alleged violation of the injunction the judge is the lawmaker, the injured party, the prosecutor, the judge, and the jury. It Is not sur prising that uniting in himself all these characters he is commonly able to obtain a conviction. While tie penalty which the judge can infict by direct sentence for a violation of his code IS fine or imprisonment, limited only by his discretion, capital punish ment may be inflicted by direction All that seems to be necessary to this end is to issue writ to the marshol or sheriff commanding him to prevent a violation of the judges code, and then the men with injunction nooses around their necks may be quickly dispatched if they attempt to march across this injunction deadline It is said the judge does not punish for a violation of the statutory offense, but only for a violation of his order pro- hibting the commission of the statu- tory ofense. Such reasoning as this is what Carlyle calls logical cobweb- bery.' The web IS not strong enough to deprive the smallest insect of its liberty much less an American citi- gen."
 Judge Caldwell has summed up the great evils flowing from the abuse of equity power by calling attention to their invasion of constitutional guarantees, coupled with methods by which they have eliminated trial by jury.
 If the only indictment against the abuse of the writ of injunction was m~wx ~n~~~x