The Connecticut labor news., 1922-09-15

There is no more important safe guard of our liberties than trial by
 jury, and trial by jury is something which does not exist in esuity prac- | t1ce. As matter of fact, the equity court, so far as we have known of 1t ! in connection with labor disputes, operates identically in the same man
 ner as the court of Star Chamber did in Great Britain before 1t was abolished; and so we have, instead of the court of equity as established in Great Britain, courts called courts of equity but operated in reality as star chambers. 1 will not put my quota tions in, l will give you an instance that perhaps explains the matter
 A short time ago 1 had the oppor- tunity of addressing the Constitution al Convention of Illinois. When I had finished my remarks I was turn ed over to the very tender cross examination of some of the dozen corporation attorneys seated there as delegates. Trying to demolish the arguments 1 had tried to present, one of the attorneys said: MT. Frey, if the home you live in, representing your life savings, contained besides that your mothers wedding ring, the shoes of some little infant that had stayed for a moment and passed on, and other things of a sentimental character that could not be replaced, and 1 was known as dangerous character and threatened to burn your home down and cause you ire parable injury, injury that could not be paid by financial reward, and the court of equity should restrain me from burning down your home, would you refuse to accept that injunction?"
 Well, I am not a lawyer, but I was taught to ask questions when I lived in New England and when he was demanding that I answer yes or no, l submitted this question to him: "If your suppositious case was ex- actly as you have stated it, and my house was burned down but you were not guilty, would you be perfectly willing to waive your right of trial by jury because an injunction had been granted mel" The answer has never yet been given-he became busy with something else
 There is probably no greater mon opoly than that of the United Shoe Machinery Company A little over two years ago they made up their minds to deunionize their machine shops, and SO they went to their ma chinists with copies of individual con tracts, or that which we call the "yellow dog,' and they told their ma chinists: "Unless you sign these con tracts which compel you to withdraw from your union and pledge you to belong to no labor organization while remaining in our employ we will dis charge you"
 And so that they might keep their organization from being destroyed for acting collectively they went on a strike. The court issued an injunc- ton restraining them from striking, because the judges conscience con vinced him 1t was for an illegal pur- pose. The Supreme Court of Massa- chusetts sustained that injunction, so that so far as injunction by judicial conscience IS concerned, the right of a trades union organization today does not depend upon the desire of wage-earners, but depends entirely upon the employers willingness, and the equity court stands prepared, if the employer desires to destroy the union of his employees, to issue an in junction declaring it illegal to go out on strike.
 The committee has made some recommendations. Upon the ques- ton of injunctions, the Congress of our United States and our state leg islatures should be willing to do what the Parliament of Great Britain did. We should be able to find men who are willing to sign the same kind of