New Britain herald., 1922-09-02
THE INJUNCTION.


 injunction granted yesterday against the unions is not at this writing available. It is said generally that 1t restraints the unions from interfer- ing in any way with the operation of the railways of the nation. If this be interpreted to forbid physical acts of violence it may be seen readily that the injunction was properly issued and would undoubtedly be made per manent when argument on the merits comes the eleventh of this month.
 With full confidence in the wisdom, integrity and justice of our Federal courts, however, and appreciating the fact that the merits of an injunction are not decided until the final argu- ment upon it, and that the granting of temporary injunction is a drastic means of preventing probably serious harm, one may say with confidence that the injunction will be modified, If it is granted at all September IL, If it contains orders which forbid the Issuing of any instruction or public statement to members of their organi cations to induce them to do or say anything to cause any railway en- ploye to leave his work or to cause any person to abstain from entering the employ of a railroad" And it tion does contain such provision.
 Obedience to such an order would prevent any leader of striking shop men from the most peaceable official argument urging a member to refrain from going back to work. Unless the court is prepared to say that the crisis is such that even the peaceable activities of unions must be stopped, that the police power of the land must be invoked to silence the voices of union leaders raised in protest, whether that protest be against any real wrong or fancied wrong, 1t can- not make permanent such an order. The necessity of the injunction, as it has played part in the government of the country and the regulation of mems actions, is fully recognized. If a whole city is on fire and the men owning all the hose in the neighbor- hood refuse to allow it to be used to put out the fire, an injunction is necessary to prevent them from making it impossible to put out that fire, even though the granting of the temporary injunction takes from them their property right in the hose, But it would be necessary in that case for the court to find that the city was. in fact, on fire and the with holding of the hose threatened de- struction of lives and property.
 In the present case the court, in order to be justified in making such an injunction permanent, without modification, must find that all off, Cial argument by unions tending to keep the men on strike threatens life and property to such an extent that the highest power of the government must be invoked even though it takes fundamental rights from members of the labor union.
 We have no sympathy with labor in this strike. We believe an injunction should issue which will make it safe for men to work where and when they will. But we cannot see how there is justice in an injunction as sweeping as the one issued if its terms are as accepted. Stop any physical violence. Prohibit anything that will rouse mems passions to the point where they are driven to acts of vio- lence. But let the injunction be so modified that it will be possible for union men who combine a belief in unionism and patriotism to abide by 1t without disloyalty to their unions and without contempt of the courts of their country.