Great Falls tribune. [volume] (Great Falls, Mont.) 1921-current, 1922-09-30
GOVERNMENT BY
INJUNCTION.

L very fond of the injunction as
a remedy for lawlessness in labor
union troubles. Punishment for
violation of law is one thing. Pun
ishment for contempt of court be-
cause of a violation of the order
of the court seems to US to be a
different thing. An injunction can
only issue when the complainant
can show the court that he has no
! adequate remedy at law for the
thing he can show is likely to hap
pen. AS a preventive measure
against injustice which cannot be
remedied afterwards the court in
junction doubtless has its place and
use. Generally speaking, the court
enioins acts which if committed
would be against the law, but some
| times the courts go far beyond this
and enjoin acts that in themselves
are not illegal, and forbid individ-
uaIs to do things which under the
constitution and the bill of rights
they have a right to do. This is
the objection to injunction in la
Dor union cases which is urged by
Samuel Gompers and other union
labor leaders. We have always
felt and still feel that they have a
good deal of sound logic on their
side of the case.
This matter came to an isSue in
the supreme court of the United
States a good many years ago IN
the A. R. U. railroad strike con-
Quoted by Eugene Debs. He was
enjoined by a Chicago federal judge
against doing various things. Many
of these things were contrary to
law. But among the things forbid
den by the court in this injunction
issued to Debs as leader of the
strike was advising or persuading"
members of his union by speech or
writing to quit work on the rail-
road. Mr.. Debs was advised by his
LAWYERS that under the constitution
of the United States it was the
lawful right of any citizen to give
advice to his friends and that I'M
der the provision of the free speech
guarantee he might also lawfully
give such advice in a meeting or
| through a circular letter. He did
so and was promptly arrested for
contempt of court and sentenced to
six months in Jail by the judge who
issued the injunction, not for vio-
lation of any statute law, but for
violation of the courts order. An
appeal was taken to the supreme
court of the United States on the
sentence. They upheld the SEN
tence. But they refused to inquire
into the merits of the case at all,
merely holding that the proceed
ings of the lower court were regu-
lar, and refusing to consider evil
dence to show that the things done
by Debs were within his rights as
a citizen, though prohibited by the
court order.
In commenting on the Debs case
at that time this newspaper took
ground against the essential inJus-
tice of lodging power in the hands
of a court judge to prohibit a cltI-
zen from exercising rights specit-
ically guaranteed to him in the bill
of rights, and then depriving him
of all the safeguards to his liberty
provided by the statutes and the
constitution such as trial by jury.
We still hold these opinions, and
the recent decision of Judge Will
kerson in the railroad shops crafts
case brings them to mind again.
Judge Wilkerson touches on this
point lightly in his recent deci-
sion unfolding the blanket ~injunc-
ton. He says: ut is asserted by
- AL-A" - --~L.Ls4