The Connecticut labor news., 1922-11-17
TRADE UNIONISTS UNWILLING TO
 WAIVE RIGHT TO TRIAL BY JURY
By JOHN P. FREY, Editor, International Mo1ders' Journal.

| It IS pOSS1Dle that the tTdue-uu1O1
 attitude toward violations of the lav
 when injunctions are granted durlns
 strikes Is not thoroughly understood | Many injunctions issued during an in dustrial dispute restrain, among othe | things, the committing of crimes ane
 misdemeanors. As the trade-unior
 misdemeanors, as 1t does not intenC
 to apply unlawful methods in con ducting a strike, the clauses of in functions restraining the committing of crimes have not been given the thoughtful consideration they deserve When judge about to issue an in junction asks of the strikers attor' neys whether they are opposed tc | crime, misdemeanor and lawlessness the invariable answer, and the quite proper one, IS that the strikers lnteno to obey the law and conduct the strike in lawful manner. And this statement is invariably accepted by the court as good grounds for insert ing within the injunction, provisions
 which restrain criminal acts. Because
 of this there is a seeming belief that
 the trade-union movement IS not op-
 posed to those features of an 1nJunc-
 ton which restrain strikers from com
 hitting lawless or criminal acts ex-
 tending from ordinary misdemeanor
 to murder.
 Tie attorneys attitude and the
 judges position would be made more
 clear, and the issue involved brought
 into full daylight, if the judge would
 ask the attorney whether there was
 any objection to having strikers re-
 strained from committing crimes, and the strikers attorney would reply, in
 substance saying, we have no objec- ,tions, your honor, because in view of the fact that my clients are on strike they are agreeable to waiving their right to a. trial by jury if any of them should be charged with any vio lation of the law in connection with the strike.
 There can be few times in the wage earner's life when the right and pro- tectoin of trial by jury is more inn portant than during an industrial con fict,s and yet the great majority of modern injunctions take away, by the stroke of a, judges pen, the right of those enjoined to a trial by jury. Those enjoined are subjected to charges of contempt of court for hay ing violated that portion of the. re- straining order prohibiting lawless acts. and find themselves charged with crimes, frequently the victims of frame-ups, without any opportunity of having jury pass upon the facts.
 Courts of equity do not restrain the committal of criminal acts outside of labor disputes, because they have no they any better authority for restrain cfril r1Jorc fr0,,, criminal acts. But this feature of the writ of injunction is of particular value to the employers; 1t is intended to have a terrifying effect upon the strikers It is intended to place within a judges hands an authority which is denied to him otherwise It operates under the guise of contempt charges to place those accused before a judge who becomes legislator, pro- secutor, judge and jury. <
 In one of his remarkable .expres- sions of opinion upon this subject, Henry Clay Caldwell, one of the na- tion's greatest federal judges, said: >s Jury and injunction are terms which cancel each other. In propor- ton as the injunction is expanded the right of trial by jury is restricted. And this result is not mere incident to the use of the writ; in many cases it's real purpose is to deprive. party of thezright of trial by jury. Arm ed with this powerful writ which has no definite boundaries or limitations and which may be used at discretion, the power-the Federal Chancellor- may be fairly characteristic as i'm 3erial"
 Not only Is the trade-union move nent most vigorously opposed to the writ of injunction as it is applied in labor cases, but especially is 1t op- posed to those clauses of the injunc- ion which restrain the committal of crimes or misdemeanors, because .hese features are intended to-, and 10, prevent trials by jury when strik CTS are accused of lawless acts in con 1ection with a strike.
 An, illustration of the results fol- owing such restraining orders is af- orded by the strike of our member 'molders) in Milwaukee, in 1906. 1 Some 25o members were arrested at various times, charged with, either nisdemeanors or more serious crimes n connection with the strike. Their ;ases were tried either in the police court of before juries, the result oeing that not a single convictoin was secured. A Federal injunction, how | ever, was issued, and under it's pro- 7isions six or seven of the strikers were punished and imprisoned for of court. During this pc