The Connecticut labor news., 1922-04-21

The preamble to the act of Parlia- ment creating the Court of Star Chamber contained the expression that it was established ito secure the certain and speedy punishment of all persons who, in the opinion ot the court, deserved punishment"
 All of the judges who sat i'll the Star Chamber were not corrupt, un- informed or violently prejudiced men, many were selected from the most honest, able, learned and con scientious among the judges, but the high courage and character ot few did not save the court from becon- ing an instrument of gross injustice, and history has recorded the slnls- ter part played by this court.
 It became so vindictive, cruel, pitiless, and gathered so much power to itself that it would have put an end to the liberties of the British people if they had not abolished it.. As one distinguished publicist said:
 Had there been no Star Chamber, there would have been no rebellion against Charles 1st."
 From the earliest Saxon days Eng lishmen have based the protection of their liberties upon the jury system.
 Over 200 years ago, a British jur- ist said:
 By the laws of King Ethelred 1t is apparent that juries were Tn use many years before the conquest; and they are, as it were, incorporated ln our constitution being the most valuable part of ii"
 More recently Lord Commissioner Maynard, referring to the subject, declared:
 Trial by jury is the subjects birthright, an inheritance as his lands are, and without which he IS not sure to keep them or anything else. This way of trial is his fence and protec- ton against all frauds and surprises and against all storms of power"
 Equally impressive was Lord Cam den's statement that:
 Trial by jury IS indeed the foun- dation of our free constitution; take that away and the whole fabric will soon molder into dust"
 Lord Erskine in his magnificent discussion of the jury system said in part:
 "One of the most valuable branch es of our laws is that which relates to juries whose antiquity is beyond the reach of record or history; they have the same area with our consti- tuition, which cannot survive them; our liberty must expire with them as the animal body with it's, most vital parts. Our ancestors were too pru- dent to trust such great concerns Qiberty or property) in the hands of any officers appointed by the Grown, or of any certain number of men dur ing life, lest they should be influenced by great men, or corrupted by brlbes, hattery or love of power"
 We inherited the jury system from the mother country. The sixth amendment to our Constitution pro- vides in part, that:
 "In all criminal prosecution the ac cused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial by an impar- tia1 jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed"
 One of the immediate results of injunctions in connection with in dustrial disputes was to transform courts of equity into the equivalent of Star Chamber proceedings, because workmen charged with contempt were denied a trial by jury and in addition were compelled to prove their innocence, instead of the burden of proof resting with the court as it does in all criminal cases.
 American equity courts without sanctioned authority of the constitu- ton, Congress, or state legislatures and in complete violation of British precedents, extended their jurisdic- ton to criminal cases by restraining the commission of illegal acts, and then trying those accused not for the alleged act, but upon a charge of contempt, this procedure denying the accused of all the rights guaranteed by the constitution, as well as the common and statutory law.
 An example of this procedure by an equity court is found in an in junction issued by the United States Circuit Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin in June, 1oo6, the striking workmen being enjoined "and the said individual defendants above named are, and each of them is, ordered, commanded and enjoined to desist from assaulting or committing per sonal violence upon any of the per employment with said complainant"
 Another prominent feature of many injunctions has been the in QeHNltc CIldl dClCl OI lllC ldHSudSC used
 Federal Judge J. V. Quarels in issuing an injunction against striking molders restrained them from
 Impeding, hindering, obstructing, or interfering with any of the business of the complainant, in the operation of any of it's works From com polling, or attempting to compel or induce, by threats or intimidation of any sort, or fraud, or deception, or violence any person to leave the em- ployment of said complainant, or not to enter its employ"
 Lawyers and courts themselves would place conflicting constructions upon this language.
 What constitutes impeding, hinder ing, or obstructing?
 What is meant by threats or in limitation of any sort, or fraud, or