Evening public ledger. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1914-1942, 1922-09-06
HEAT WITHOUT LIGHT? YES!
SEE DAUGHERTY OR GoMpERS
Each Seems to Have Been Overwhelmed
by Emotion In the Affair Of
the Injunction

the Injunction
THE fat. lot of people are sav,nr
tremulously, IS in the fire through Tho
combined energies of Attorney General
Daugherty md Samuel Gompers and their
joint enthusiasm for wordy rumpuses
We're going 70 get you 80 said the At
torney General dramatically to the aerres
sive unonists, and Mr.. Gompers rose
grandly to his feet with thundcrous Come
on
Which, murrnur the alarmists, will back
down first? Is Mr. Daugherty going 70 call
out the army and fill the air of autumn
with the music of bugles? VIII the presi-
dent OF the Federation of Labor really at
tempt 70 carry ont his implied threat TO
austerely and with word deny 70 about
loo,oOo,uOO people the right 10 life. liberty
and tn" pursuit Of happiness through de-
loernte paralysis of key industries?
This is funny world. The oddity Of
some of its moods is inexplcable. But II
ism t nearly so funny as 1t seems IN the eyes
Of the people who assume that Mr. Daugh-
Prty or Mr.. Gompors should hc in,erprcted
literally at this Crux Of affairs,
The 1O0,000,OA0 people whose lives and
interests are being drawn deeper and deeper
into the row between organized capital and
organized labor aren't foolish enough 70
suppose that any such edict as Mr.. Com
ners darkly hlnted at ever would be issued.
and Mr.. Gompers himself isn't so foolish
as to suppose that they are foolish enough
to leave themselves at his mercy.
Mr. Daugherty, on his part. suffers
ncutely from deficient literary style. It Is
more charitable 10 take this view Of him
than TO presume that he said all that he
meant or meant all that lie said in his op-
r!cation for a Federal injunction against
the striking shopmen. He Is not an in
telleCtual marvel at best Few people will
let their minds run all the way with his
IN any event. But it is worth observing
that emotion probably had MS much 10 do
with the application for m Injunction as 1t
had 20 do with Mr., Conn ers' comments on
the matter.
What We have been witnessing. there
fore. Is the liberation in two conspicuous
quarters Of great quantities Of heat
Nltbbtl NV tbl IlVl accompaniment OF llgnt.
The Hight will come later when the formal
hearing of the injunction application is
he'd. That will be next Monday. Mean
while the country will be wise If It refuses
TO get excited or upset over anything that
Gompers or Daugherty may do or sav.
Good natured people will give them both
an opportunity TO cool off They are like
a great many other people concerned d!.
rcctly with the rail and coal strikes. They
have been getting into water too deep for
them. Their outrrtns cannot decentIy be
interpreted as declarations of policy They
are expressions of anger and discontinue
and little else.
Court injunctions opposed, or seemingly
opposed, to the rights of men to talk to one
another or communicate about their affairs
or engage peacefully in the methods COM
mon to all human organizations formed for
legitimate purposes have an unpleasant
aspect nt best. Such things aren't whole
some And no one knows this better tAau
average Judges In Federal Court. More
over, even in an emergency Ike the one that
has arisen on the railroads, 1t seems hardly
fair to deny to one group tho rights Of or
ganized action which the opposing group
retains.
We may be wrong, yet we venture to
believe that the fault with Mr.. Daugherty
IS fault Of technique rather than Of in
tentlon. The terms of his application were
enough to make Gompers rage. AS a good
many Of his critics assert, he outlined q
series of restrictions which, II they were
sanctioned by the Courts, might actually
make n settlement Of the strike impossible
by forbddIng any further discussion of
terms.
As for the injunction Itself, 1t need not be
viewed as so revolutionary or horrible or
destructive q thing as Mr. Gompcrs would
make Of It, Whether It is justifabe or not
remains to be seen through detailed evidence
and argument. Corporations are enjoined
every few minutes for one thing or another.
In this instance the point of difference Is
that while injunctons against corporations
are supposed merely to limit material rights
the Injunction sought by the Attorney Gen
ernl is intended to restrict human rights
supposed TO be guaranteed In all our philos
ophy of government-that Is, the rights of
all men to be guided in their personal life
and relationships by their own will.
There is point, however, beyond which
n man's own free will may not be permitted
~ take him, and that is the point which oil
current social and economic discussion is
intended to define. 1t is not yet clearly
defined, but 1t will be, largely because OF
the stresses through which we are now
passing. Thus II 1t is apparent that men
are organized and active in ways antagonis.
tic to public interest If, In other words, II
were demonstrated that the shopmcn were