THE MISUSE OF INJUNCTIONS

The temptation to misuse the power of injunction as a means of restraining the action of strikers is very great. Striking workmen are often injudicious, very frequently crude and ignorant, but the bulk of the trouble comes from the fact that judges, the legal profession, and, to a large extent, the press, are at heart opposed to trades unions and to their right to conduct strikes.

It has taken three-quarters of a century of struggle against persecution, as well as prosecution, for organized labor to get even a tacit recognition. It was not so long ago that the abstract right of organization was denied. It was called "conspiracy." That much, however, has been lived down, and it is now generally admitted that laborers have the undoubted right to organize and to strike if they so desire. Since the courts, the press and employers are forced by dint of logic, experience and public sentiment to concede that much, they reach out with an eagerness that shows their true animus to put every obstacle in the way of the laborers realizing any practical results from organization.

For a long time the "black list" was used as a means of defeating the laborer's right to organize. This was a conspiracy of employers to deprive the laborers of the means of earning a livelihood. It was this really cowardly method of warfare which led to the introduction of the walking delegate. Laborers found that it was unsafe for any wageearner to be a spokesman for their cause without being the victim of enforced idleness, or converted into a tramp, and sometimes a criminal.

In order to secure the right of free speech, workingmen decided to employ some of their number to be their spokesmen on all occasions where controversy with employers was involved. These men had nothing to fear from the employers, because they were beyond their reach. They were in the employ of the union, and could afford, like everybody

else, to serve their employers. Of course, some of these walking delegates were not persons of high character, they became offensive, a little like the political bosses, and were not always free from corruption.

It may be frankly admitted that the walking delegate has been a severe thorn in the side of employers. He has been a menace and often a nuisance; but it should not be forgotten that he is the direct product of the persecuting tactics adopted by the employers themselves. He is the creature of their methods, and for his infliction they have themselves only to blame. The spirit which adopted the black list and created the walking delegate is now using the power of injunction to accomplish the same end, the defeat of united and organized action by laborers. The spirit in which the injunctions are issued, the treatment of the laborers when in court, all show the same animus. If this continues, something will have to be done to restrict the power of the courts, or the right of free speech on labor matters will soon be gone.

The latest case of this kind, and not the least aggravating, is the recent decision of Judge Jackson, in Parkersburg, West Va. (July 24th), where he sentenced six workmen, one for ninety days and the others from five to sixty days each for contempt of court. Of what did this contempt consist? Simply in delivering addresses to the miners on strike in West Virginia. In delivering his decision, Judge Jacksons is reported to have said:

"While I recognize the right of all laborers to combine for the purpose of protecting all their lawful rights, I do not recognize the right of laborers to conspire together to compel employees who are not dissatisfied with their work in the mines to lay down their picks and quit their work without a just or proper reason therefor, merely to gratify a professional set of agitators, organizers and walking delegates, who roam all over the country as agents for some combination, who are vampires that live and fatten on the honest labor of the coal miners of the country, and who are busybodies, creating dissatisfaction among a class of people who are quiet, well disposed, and who do not want to be disturbed by the unceasing agitation of this class of people. In the case we have under consideration, these defendants are known as professional agitators, organizers and walking delegates.

They have nothing in common with the people who are employed in the mines of the Clarkesburg Fuel Company. The strong arm of the court of equity is invoked in this case, not to suppress the right of free speech, but to restrain and inhibit these defendants, whose only purpose is to bring about strikes by trying to coerce people who are not dissatisfied with the terms of their employment, which results in inflicting injury and damage to their employers, as well as the employees."

Since when was Judge Jackson's consent necessary "for all laborers to combine for the purpose of protecting their lawful rights"? That right is theirs without the consent of Judge Jackson. But his spirit of mind and aversion to laborers having their rights, were shown by the characterization of these defendants by the judge as "vampires that live and fatten on the honest labor of the coal miners of the country," etc. Besides being undignified, unbecoming a judge, and intolerably mean, this is untrue. The walking delegates, or labor speakers, are not "vampires." They do not "fatten" on anything. Usually they are poor, and are no more entitled to be thus classified than is Judge Jackson and a very large proportion of his profession. Such language reflects a quality of character that should disqualify a man for sitting on the bench in this country.

But why were these men held in contempt? Because an injunction had been issued forbidding the laborers or their friends from doing anything to help or encourage the strikers. In addressing the strikers, therefore, these men were in contempt. But in contempt of what? An injunction forbidding the exercise of the right of ordinary free speech. And why? Because the coal mine owners in West Virginia had asked that this right should be suppressed, since its exercise in this case was contrary to their interests. But the suspension of the right of free speech for such a reason will bring its own reward. As surely as the black list created the walking delegate, this arbitrary suppression of the laborers' right of free speech, when their industrial interests are involved, will bring a reaction.

Injunction is an old and wise principle, when impartially and properly used, but its use as an instrument to

suppress the right of free speech in labor controversies is really converting the court into an enemy of labor, the result of which will surely some day be bad for the courts and worse for the country.

There are certain newspapers whose antipathy to the efforts of organized labor is so constitutional that they may be relied upon to eagerly defend all efforts to use the authority of the courts or the prerogative of the president to restrict, or on any pretence suppress the laborers' freedom of action in case of strikes. The New York Press has hitherto not been in this group, but has stood for the principle of equal rights for laborers and capitalists. It is therefore with great surprise that in this case it is so vigorously defending Judge Jackson's decision, without even criticising his unseemly language in describing labor speakers as "agitators," "vampires," "busybodies," etc. In one of its emphatic editorials on this subject, using capitals for emphasis, it says:

"No injunction, of course, until it becomes permanent, compels any one to forego his rights or to abandon entirely a course because somebody else objects. What it does do, when there is question as to the infringement of any one's rights, is to hold an existing situation in a given status until the rights of those concerned are DEFINITELY DETERMINED UNDER THE LAW. Then the law finally fixes the relations of the disputants under their rights of law. This has been done, the objectors to "government of injunction" have discovered, with the same effect on capital as on labor. And the discovery has gagged their filthy mouths."

The Press has evidently deluded itself into the notion that this is a fair statement, and puts the injunction against labor speakers on an exact par with the injunction against corporations, but really it is too bright and able a paper long to remain under this delusion.

Of course, a temporary injunction is intended only to hold the situation "until the rights of those concerned can be definitely determined under the law," but in this case there was no such purpose. The judge knows this, the parties applying for the injunction know it, and the Press ought to know it. If there had been an intention of making

{

the injunction temporary, with a view of "determining the rights of the laborers under the law," a hearing would have been had in a few days. That this was obviously not the intention of the court, is shown by the fact that the hearing is fixed for next November, a date long after the trouble is likely to be ended. This talk about a temporary injunction against labor is the veriest subterfuge, and in this case the evident intent was to make any hearing on its merit impossible. If this injunction policy is to be sustained by such quibbling as this, the freedom of speech for labor is gone whenever it serves the purpose of employers to suppress it.

What right has Judge Jackson, or the president of a coal mine, or the editor of a newspaper, or anybody else, to say who shall address a meeting of workingmen? The miners have just as much right to ask their fellow-miners in other states to address them as to ask one of their own immediate number. What has the fact that the speakers do not work in the local mines, or that they are not miners at all, to do with their right to speak? The strikers have the right, and might often very wisely invite, not merely outsiders in their own craft, but people outside their industry altogether, economists, publicists, congressmen, senators, lawyers, or anybody else, to address them. If this decision of Judge Jackson's should become an accepted rule of conduct, the president of the United States could be enjoined from addressing the miners.

The arrest of Debs had the excuse of being preceded by violence; in the contempt case in Ann Arbor the flimsy claim was made that the railroad was subject to the interstate commerce law, and, being in the hands of a receiver, was under the direction of the United States court, but in this case no such far-fetched excuse existed. There was no violence, no destruction of property and no danger to persons; but because some speakers from Pennsylvania addressed the strikers, after an injunction against all attempts to influence or encourage the strikers had been issued, they were imprisoned for contempt of court. Instead of extending constitutional rights to the Filipinos, this looks won