Slike strani
PDF
ePub

There is no labor leader who has not had a bitter experience with these injunctions. In what was probably the first injunction ever issued in a labor dispute, the injunction against the Cigar Makers during their strike at Binghamton, N. Y., the strikers and all others acting for them or in their behalf were enjoined by the court not only from being in the vicinity of the factory, but also from being upon the street in which the factory stood, while the court further enjoined the union from paying money or giving support to non-union workmen. Even though this injunction was appealed and subsequently set aside, the damage done to the union through the unwisdom of the judges was irreparable, and no advantage was gained by the appeal. In many cases unions have been enjoined from picketing, from giving money or support to strikers, and from doing any one of the many legal acts which are absolutely essential to the gaining of a strike or to resistance to a lockout. In the case of the injunction against the Amalgamated Association of Iron and Steel Workers, the strikers were enjoined even from peaceable talk with workers, while in the case of an injunction against the International Typographical Union, which was at that time in conflict with the Buffalo Express, the members of the union were enjoined from boycotting and were even refused the right to discuss or talk about the paper in any way that might affect it or its business. The Industrial Commission received a large amount of testimony showing clearly the folly of many injunctions, some of which were set aside and some upheld, although all of them worked irreparable injury to the workingmen and brought the judiciary into disrespect and contempt.

In order to avoid even the semblance of misrepresenting the position of the judges or misstating the terms of injunctions, I prefer, rather than give my own account of the injunction issued against strikers, to quote from a pamphlet carefully prepared by five members of the New York Bar and issued during the year 1900 by the Social Reform Club of that city. "In the case of the Sun Printing and Publishing Company versus Delaney and others, in December, 1899," says the pamphlet, "the Supreme Court of New

York, among other things, enjoined the defendants from the exercise of their right to give the public their side of the controversy with the Sun, as an argument against advertising in a paper which they claimed had treated them unjustly. It also forbade them from attempting to persuade news dealers from selling the paper, and finally wound up with a sweeping restraint 'from in any other manner or by any other means interfering with the property, property rights or business of the plaintiff.' It should be added that on appeal the Appellate Division struck out these commands, but they were so plainly subversive of fundamental rights that it is difficult to see how they could have been granted in the first instance.

"In still another case last year the 'Wheeling Railway Company versus John Smith and others' (so runs the title of the action, without naming the others) in the United States Circuit Court, West Virginia, two men not parties to the action nor found to be agents of 'John Smith and others' whoever they may have been, were punished for contempt of court for, among other things, 'reviling' and 'cursing' the Court?-not at all, but for 'reviling' and cursing' employees of the railroad company. If these men had not actually served out an imprisonment in jail for thirty days as a punishment for contempt of corporation, it might be thought your committee had taken this example from opera bouffe. The legality of this punishment was never passed on by the Supreme Court, for the reason, as your committee understand, that the parties were unable to bear the expense of taking it there, and so served their term in jail.

"During the final drafting of our report a temporary injunction has been granted by a justice of the Supreme Court in New York City. . . This injunction forbids the defendants (certain members of the Cigar Makers' Union) even from approaching their former employers for the laudable purpose of reaching an amicable result. It forbids them from making their case known to the public, if the tendency of that is to vex the plaintiffs or make them uneasy. It forbids them from trying, in a perfectly peaceful way, in any place in the city, even in the privacy of a man's own

home, to persuade a new employee that justice is on their side and that he ought to sympathize with them sufficiently not to work for unjust employers; and finally it forbids the union from paying money to the strikers to support their families during the strike."

During the last decade attempts have been made by organized labor to secure by legislative action or otherwise the limitation of the use of injunctions to their proper sphere. In other words, the trade unions of the country are endeavoring to protect the right of jury trials in labor disputes, which right is hazarded by the aggressions of the judiciary. The American Federation of Labor has petitioned Congress and the legislatures of the various states for laws restraining the power of the courts in the issue of injunctions, and the railway brotherhoods have also been active in this direction. The Hoar-Grosvenor Bill introduced into the House of Representatives and reported from the Judiciary Committee attempts to define conspiracy and to take away the power of the courts to issue injunctions in the case of a combination or agreement of persons to do anything in furtherance of a labor dispute. The bill provides: "That no agreement, combination or contract by or between two or more persons to do or procure to be done, or not to do or procure not to be done, any act in contemplation or furtherance of any trade dispute between employers and employees in the District of Columbia or in any Territory of the United States, or between employers and employees who may be engaged in trade or commerce between the several States, or between any Territory and another, or between any Territory or Territories and any State or States or the District of Columbia, or with foreign nations, or between the District of Columbia and any State or States or foreign nations shall be deemed criminal, nor shall those engaged therein be indictable or otherwise punishable for the crime of conspiracy, if such act committed by one person would not be punishable as a crime, nor shall such agreement, combination, or contract be considered as in restraint of trade or commerce, nor shall any restraining order or injunction be issued with relation thereto. Nothing in this act shall exempt

from punishment, otherwise than as herein excepted any persons guilty of conspiracy, for which punishment is now provided by any Act of Congress, but such Act of Congress shall, as to the agreements, combinations and contracts hereinbefore referred to, be construed as if this act were therein contained."

Members of trade unions and all other citizens should agitate ceaselessly against the abomination of the injunction. Legislators and judges must be constantly and always brought to a realizing sense of the deep iniquity of the denial of the right of trial by jury. It is possible that laws passed by the state or national governments to repel judicial aggression will be set aside by the courts as an infringement or impairment of their supposed rights. The Supreme Court of the state of West Virginia declared unconstitutional the law of that state, passed in 1898, limiting the exercise of the injunction, with the statement that the courts were coördinate with the legislature itself, and that therefore the legislature had no right to restrain the powers of the judiciary, or to prevent the courts from protecting themselves by proceedings in contempt.

It seems to me that the question of the legality of a law restricting the indiscriminate use of injunctions should be inquired into, and if it is seen or contemplated that such a law will not be upheld by the courts, then other methods should be used. The courts themselves should be constantly appealed to for relief from their own oppression. As a matter of history the injunction, which is a procedure in equity, was originally intended to protect citizens from the very sort of wrongs which the injunction as used in labor disputes actually causes. The complexion and convictions of courts change, and perhaps equity will give to the workingman what equity has taken away. Perhaps, through the agitation of the wage earners and through the willingness of men to go to jail in this good cause, the courts themselves will come to an understanding of the manner in which they have departed from their own precedents and invaded the liberties of the people. Personally, I share with the vast majority of trade unionists a respect for the judiciary, which even a decade of wrong-minded, tortuous, and illogical

decisions cannot entirely destroy. If, however, there is no remedy from present judges, then we must look to reform from an amendment to the constitution of the United States relegating the judiciary to its proper place, as a law-interpreting and not as a law-making body, or else, by the appointment of judges of character and knowledge, we must gradually change the trend of decisions by altering the calibre of the men appointed. I do not approve of stocking the Supreme Court or of doing anything to impair the independence or lessen the legitimate control of that body, but it does seem to me that the Executive, in appointing judges, should bear in mind that the legislature needs as much protection from the judiciary as the judiciary from the legislature.

As to the attitude of trade unionists, I believe, in the first place, in ceaseless agitation for a redress of this intolerable grievance. Moreover, when an injunction whether temporary or permanent, forbids the doing of a thing which is lawful, I believe that it is the duty of all patriotic and law-abiding citizens to resist, or at least to disregard, the injunction. It is better that half the workingmen of the country remain constantly in jail than that trial by jury and other inalienable and constitutional rights of the citizens of the United States be abridged, impaired, or nullified by injunctions of the courts.

« PrejšnjaNaprej »