A. J. Trude, Prominent Chicago Attorney.

The mere fact that a railroad company is a common carrier would, in my opinion, not be sufficient grounds for such an injunction to issue, although there are precedents for such proceedings when this is taken in conjunction with the laws regulating interstate commerce and the carrying of government mails.

The injunction is sweeping and includes not only persons to whom it is directly addressed, but all others who join with them, expressly or implied, to bring about the purpose that the injunction was intended to avert. I doubt if a more general legal restraining paper was ever issued.

The evident seriousness of the situation can be detected in every line of Judge Adams' order. Whatever may be the legal grounds for such an injunction to issue the reckoning is bound to come sooner or later.

Such papers from the courts only serve to emphasize the seriousness of these difficulties.

Indianapolis Sentinel.

Having discovered a federal judge of the injunction-while-you-wait stripe, President Ramsey can now tell the Wabash employes to be Vanderbilted.

Resolution of Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers in Meeting at Houston, Texas.

Whereas, President Joseph Ramsey, of the Wabash Railway, took unfair advantage of the time given him to consider propositions submitted by the firemen and trainmen under his jurisdiction to go into court and secure an injunction restraining their officers and committees from declaring a strike; and,

Whereas, We consider the issuance of the said injunction by a federal judge a gross usurpation of power, a serious menace to the most cherished freedom of American citizens, binding them by judicial bonds in a condition of involuntary servitude; therefore, be it

Resolved, That the Brotherhood engineers of the Southwest, in union meeting assembled, express emphatic disapproval of the act of President Ramsey as a cowardly abuse of a truce; and, be it further Resolved, That we condemn the injunction of Judge Adams as an unwarranted act of tyranny.

Harrisburg (Pa.) Independent.

The injunction proceedings had in a St. Louis federal court in behalf of the Wabash Railroad, yesterday, as defined by Solicitor Blodget, are within the law. That is, Mr. Blodget states that the injunction runs only against conspiracies to interfere with interstate commerce. The only danger, therefore, is in the definition of the word conspiracies. Webster's dictionary defines conspiracy as "a combination of men for an evil purpose; an agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime in concert." If

conspiracy is thus construed the injunction issued by Judge Adams yesterday is all right.

Peacefully quitting an employment is not that kind of a combination and quietly soliciting or even persuading others to leave their work is hardly that sort of an agreement. If a man is bound by written contract to service for a given time or under certain conditions an injunction would lie against him individually, no doubt. But to allege that quietly quitting employment by one or a thousand men not so bound is a conspiracy, even though the action prevents the Wabash road from fulfilling its obligations under the interstate commerce act, would be an unadulterated outrage and a criminal infringement of personal liberty.

The public will watch with curious interest and deep concern the development of this legal comedy or tragedy, which ever it turns out to be. The federal courts are too ready to lend their processes to corporations to oppress employes and it looks as if the purpose of the proceedings in question are in pursuance of that unhappy trend. The statement of Mr. Blodget is reassuring, however, and unless he and the court misconstrue the word conspiracies, no harm will follow. But if this hope is disappointed they are "sowing to the wind to reap the whirlwind." They are "cherishing up wrath against the day of wrath."

Judge Tuley, for Thirty Years on the Chicago Bench.

We will reap the whirlwind some day from the seeds so sown. I am not surprised at an injunction of any kind being issued, I regret it because I believe that the issuing of such writs of injunction brings the administration of justice into contempt. It breeds discontent. The day may come, in the not distant future, when the working classes will have political control and will appoint judges who will also issue writs of injunction-in their favor. I see no reason why a writ of injunction should not as well be issued against a railroad enjoining it from discharging any employe or from failing to pay such employe a certain fixed rate of wages. It would be no greater departure from the true principles that ought to govern when issuing such writs.

We judges are getting to be the whole thing in government. We are approaching a condition that will be without precedent in the history of the world, in which the governing power will be exercised by the judges, with the executives and legislators as mere figureheads in carrying on the government. It is time to call a halt.

Columbus (0.) Citizen.

This is a sweeping proposition, indeed. That the Federal Government can step in and say when men shall work against their will at wages not satisfactory to them, and say, furthermore, that they shall not attempt to persuade others to take joint action with them for the ameli

oration of conditions of which they complain, is an assumption of power never contemplated by any law now on the statute books of the United States or of any State, and not justified by a single word of the American Constitution.

If the courts of this country desire to be held in popular opinion as inimical to the common welfare, they can find no better way to promote their object than by such exercise of the power of government by injunction as is implied in this order of Judge Adams. The ease with which such injunctions can be obtained and the manifest injustice and un-Americanism of them must convince even the most conservative citizen that something must be done to define the powers of the federal courts with reference to the personal liberty of all citizens. It will not do to call half the population "anarchists," as was done in 1896 and 1900, because they vote against the violation of personal liberty by the arbitrary edict of United States judges. Some other answer must be given to the proposition that American citizens have rights that even the courts are bound to respect. * * *

An eastern apologist for government by injunction defends the recent order of Judge Adams against the Trainmen's and Firemen's Union of the Wabash Railroad

on the ground that it is temporary only, or, in the language of the injunction it self, in effect "until the further order of

the court."

"Its practical effect," declares this authority, "is to forbid any sudden tieing up of the road and its traffic by a strike order. The strike may yet come, and there is no pretense that men can be permanently enjoined from quitting work either individually or in combination."

Here we have the doctrine that permanent government by injunction would be an intolerable invasion of natural rights, while government by injunction that is merely temporary is entirely in accord with a sound public policy. It is difficult to see the justice of such a presumption. In the very nature of the case, if men have a right to quit work "individually or in combination," it must be a right unassailable temporarily as well as permanently. As a matter of fact almost all injunctions of the kind under consideration are intended to control movements that are purely temporary in character, but designed to have permanent effects. There is no guarantee, however, that an injunction which prevails "until the further order of the court" is a temporary injunction. It is merely so called because the court has not yet made the injunction permanent; but the very language of the order shows that the period of its effectiveness is indefinite and entirely subject to the will of the authority granting the injunction.

It would seem to be self-evident that the country needs some plain definition of the powers of the federal courts in these cases. It would seem to be self-evident that a temporary injunction may work as great an injury to the employed

as a permanent one. It is certainly impossible to apologize for an unjust act of a court or any other authority on the ground that it is merely temporary. The whole subject of government by injunction deserves thorough investigation, without prejudice and with due consideration of the claims that may be urged by those who oppose as well as those who defend the modern tendency of federal courts to circumscribe the personal liberty of individuals. In admitting the urgency of this question no slight upon the dignity of American courts is involved, and there is no reason for the common accusation against those who urge its importance that they are "anarchists" or in any sense inimical to government by due process of law. Meanwhile the question at issue is an open one and will never be settled until it is settled right.

Joliet (Ill.) News.

The full import of the injunction granted by Judge Adams, of St. Louis, against the railway men's unions in the Wabash matter, is beginning to dawn upon the people of the United States and from every quarter of the nation there comes a mighty protest. The people seem to be finally aroused and the spirit of Alt

geld, the leader in the fight against govagain in the fiery denunciations that are ernment by injunction, seems to live heard on every hand against this latest attack on the rights and liberties of the people.

Even the usually conservative newspapers can not restrain their honest convicis tending. It was government by injunc tions, for they see to what end the policy tion that first overruled the constitutional right of trial by jury, a right that was one of the foundation stones of the Re

public and a right for which our ancestors fought and died.

The right of free speech has gone too under government by injunction and even the freedom of the press has been taken away in more than one instance.

stepping stone to a complete industrial Government by injunction is but the slavery.

Chicago Socialist.

Just a few more bumps and the working classes will come to their senses. This injunction has been classed as infamous, but it is just the thing to be expected. The infamous thing is that labor having eighty-five per cent. of the voting power should fail to exercise it.

N. Y. Special to New Orleans Picayune.

"If the Wabash Railroad Company can sustain its position, the death knell of strikes on interstate railroads has been sounded."

This is the opinion expressed in financial circles today on President Ramsey's aggressive action in obtaining an injunction restraining the workmen's organization from ordering a strike on his system.

It was pointed out that the obligations of carrying companies to the Interstate Commerce Commission had never before been interposed as a legal bar to strikes.

Should the injunction be made permanent, it was said that a blow would be struck at labor organizations similar to that which occurred in England when the Taff Vale Railway Company was awarded substantial damages against the Workmen's Association for ordering and maintaining a strike to the detriment of the company's business.

Chicago Chronicle.

It is the plain duty of every good citizen to obey the laws, not as he may understand them, but as they are interpreted by those in authority. In other words, it is the duty of every good citizen to respect the properly constituted authorities.

If men rejected that rule of duty and everyone set himself up as his own judge of the meaning of the laws and disobeyed them as construed by courts and magistrates government would be at an end. Instead of law and order we should have anarchy.

This by no means implies that there is no remedy for judicial and magisterial wrongs. The signers of the address_referred to indicate one remedy-the first to be invoked-which is the presentation to the court of the facts and reasons for vacating the order which in the judgment of the men wrongs them.

But this is not the last remedy. If the men fail to secure from the court a recognition of what they believe to be their rights, they can turn from the judicial to the legislative branch of the government, which is vested with a certain judicial function for the express purpose of protecting the people against the exercise of tyrannical power by the judicial branch. To state it plainly, if any man believes he suffers from abuse of power by any United States judge, he can invoke the power of impeachment. This power is expressly granted to Congress in the Constitution of the United States, and it can be invoked by any individual or corporate association for protection against judicial wrong.

This is the only proper course for any aggrieved party. Disobedience of an order of court is rebellion, and not to be thought of by any good citizen. Impeachment is a lawful and orderly proceeding, and it may be the duty as well as the right of individuals, supported by organizations, to resort to that proceeding for the protection of their rights.

Chicago Post.

Those who have attempted argument in support of the anti-strike injunction in the Wabash case can not be congratulated either on their logic or on their grasp of first principles. They profess to concede the right to strike not only to individuals, but to legal combinations and organizations of individuals. They point out that the employes of the Wabash are left free

to walk out at any moment, and to call a meeting to consider the advisability of striking and vote upon it. And they jump to the conclusion that the injunction issued by Judge Adams violates no right of American citizenship.

But this conclusion begs the whole question and indicates extreme confusion of thought. The right to strike necessarily implies the right to advise a strike, to induce or persuade or peaceably "cause" a strike. You have the right to advise a man to do anything which the law allows him to do. You may not advise murder or arson or forgery, because these things are criminal. A strike or lockout is not criminal, and only the advocates of industrial despotism would make arbitration compulsory and deprive the employer of the right to discharge and the employe of the right to quit. In the name of common sense, then, how can it be wrong for any man or any number of men to advise or persuade others to exercise their right of discharging, or of quitting, as the case may be?

The sophists of the new feudalism will find the question unanswerable. And therefore so much of the restraining order in the Wabash case as forbids the officers and representatives of the trainmen from "advising" or calling a strike in accordance with the rules of their organization falls to the ground. Can equity restrain the newspapers in a given jurisdiction from advising employers to discharge certain men, or workmen to resist, by striking, say, an arbitrary reduction of wages? Certainly not. But if editors may advise strikes and lockouts, why may not officers and representatives of a labor organization?

The highest court of New York has decided that men acting in concert may threaten to do anything which the law permits them to do. The greater includes the less. To say that a man may strike but not talk about striking is a manifest absurdity. It is equally absurd to affirm that, while strikes and lockouts are legal, advice and moral suasion in connection with either by third parties are unlawful. To repeat, we have the right to advise and persuade men to commit any act, carry out any policy, adopt any course, which the law allows them to commit, carry out or adopt. A denial of this proposition is conclusive evidence of inability to reason.

Peoria (Ill.) Star.

The injunction which the managers of the Wabash road have secured against the trainmen is about as good an illustration of the dangerous uses to which this legal instrument may be put as could well be devised. When it comes down to enjoining a man from talking, arguing, or persuading another, it is as despotic a use of arbitrary power as can be found in the annals of government. Our fathers held that the inalienable right of an American citizen is to talk and print what he pleases. He is to be held for the consequences of his act, but in the exercise of those acts he is to have full and complete

liberty. The judge in the Wabash cases absolutely forbids anything of this kind. A man can not even argue with another in order to convince him of the error of his ways. It is to the credit of the trainmen that they accepted the situation and are endeavoring by perfectly peaceful and legal means to have the injunction dissolved. We do not believe that it will stand for a moment. If law is simply common sense applied to business, it certainly ought not to stand, for there is neither sense, reason nor justice in it. The right to issue an injunction ought not to be left to the will of a single judge. It is being distorted and perverted far beyond the original intention. As it is now managed, any small and petty judge for any reason can enjoin any man even from thinking aloud. It is evident that this sort of thing can not continue. We must reduce these matters to some kind of method, and there is great need for a general system that shall take these questions away from the strife and commotion that now accompanies strikes and reduce them to system that is to say, put them on a basis of arbitration where the rules will be known and where we will not be subject to the caprice of any one man. When we do this we will have done more to bring labor and capital together and settle these questions on the broad basis of common sense than by any other plan.

Grand Rapids (Mich.) Herald.

The injunction issued by Federal Judge Adams of St. Louis against the Brotherhood of Railway Trainmen and the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen is one of the most sweeping in the history of industry. A strike for higher wages and better hours was about to be ordered by these brotherhoods among the men belonging to them, when President Ramsey of the Wabash Railroad filed a bill and secured an order for an injunction preventing the strike.

In brief, the injunction restrains the brotherhoods and all connected therewith from ordering the employes of the company to strike, and from in any way interfering with the operation of its trains by the company. The effect of it is to keep the brakemen and firemen at work, whether they will or not, as far as concerted action may go. If the injunction is sustained on the application, which will be promptly made for its dissolution, it will be a precedent validating the doctrine that a labor union can not order a strike, or use its influence in promoting one providing the strike interferes with the conduct of the business of the complaining company-which of course it does in all instances. The bill of complaint makes much of the fact that the road is engaged in interstate commerce, and the strike would therefore interfere with traffic between the States.

The attitude of the trainmen and firemen in the face of the injunction is commendable. Instead of resorting to violence, they have kept at work, recognizing the binding power of the injunction until

it is dissolved in a hearing in court. No defiance of the court's mandate is uttered by the union leaders, and no heroics are indulged in. The men look upon the action of the court as subversive of American rights and privileges and as contrary to common justice and fairness. But the strike leaders recognize the fact that the way to proceed is the legal method, and steps will be promptly taken to have the injunction dissolved.

The situation is a serious one for organized labor. The chief tenet of the labor union is that the organization as a body shall fight the battles of its members. Strikes are to be declared by the union and not by the individual members. Now if the law shall be established in the Wabash case that the employers may head off a strike by applying for an injunction preventing the union from ordering the strike and from interfering with the business of the concern by stopping the men from work, it would seem that labor unions would be reduced to nothing more than benevolent societies. If the union is to be deprived of its powers to solidify and direct the action of its members in their controversies with employers over matters affecting mutual interests, then organized labor, which is today the hope and protection of those who toil, can no longer contribute a potent factor in bettering the condition of labor. The decision of the court on the motion to dissolve the injunction will be awaited with greatest interest by all friends of the laboring man the country over.

Boone (Ia.) News.

At this distance it is not possible to look into the merits of this especial case. Injunctions approaching this sweeping denial of right of laboring men to strike have been issued before, but never as a denial of the right per se. A railroad in the hands of the United States as receiver has been protected from strikes by injunc tion on the ground of such strike interfering with the delivery of United States mail. The present injunction has no such mitigating circumstances and it seems to be a denial of the right of combination among laboring men for the purpose of bettering their circumstances.

No doubt the general public will hail Judge Adams' decision with delight, because it seems to be such an easy way of settling the strike problem. As a piece of cheap notoriety Judge Adams' action makes a hit with a great many people. But it will never stand in a higher court. The right of the individual to quit work carries with it the right of a class of individuals to quit collectively. As long as there is no coercion, the right of peaceful persuasion can not be denied. The strike is baneful, but it is the weapon of the last resort and the only effective one when employers are stubborn and unfair. The injunction is absurd when it is contemplated what would have happened if a different set of men had been enjoined. There would have been a conspicuous absence of hands the next morning and the

injunction would have been laughed to the winds.

It should be borne in mind, however, that Judge Adams' injunction does not apply to the employes themselves, but rather to the officers of the order, who are en joined from calling the men out. This does not affect the general import of the decision at law, which is to the effect that the men can not organize and elect officers to work according to their instruc tions. This is striking at the fundamental principles of labor organization. If the courts can award damages for employes quitting their jobs, then the employes can just as reasonably collect damages for discharge. If the strike is to be declared a contempt of court, then there must be compulsory arbitration in which each side shall have a fair hearing. Many believe that therein lies the solution of the difficulties between labor and capital. But the constitution will have to be reorgan

ized before it can become effective.

Bloomington (Ill.) Record.

This order was issued at the instance of President Ramsey, of the Wabash, and is regarded as the most sweeping and rad ical action yet taken by any court. It will be noticed that the men are not only enjoined from ordering a strike, but are absolutely commanded not to endeavor to persuade or induce the employes of the company from leaving their work. This is a step farther than any court has yet gone in this country, and will create a great stir in labor circles. Whether this startling order will be made permanent remains to be seen. If it is so ordered then the railway unions will be perpetually en joined from striking, and concerted action looking to bettering their condition will be a thing of the past. This may seem too far-reaching and preposterous for belief to some, but the acme seems to have been reached by the federal courts, and there can be no more steps made in this direction without reaching the point where revolution is at hand.

The Record regrets that such a state of affairs exist, and stands unequivocally for peace and justice in the settlement of all disputes, but can not approve of the course taken by any court when the result is to rob laboring men of their right to quit their employment either singly or collectively, when they see fit to do so.

Pittsburg (Pa.) Leader.

Railroad managers in Pittsburg are awaiting with intense interest the developments of the Wabash dispute with the trainmen. The injunction granted to President Joseph Ramsey restraining the men from engaging in a strike is an absolutely new point in the affairs of railroads and the outcome is a matter of utmost importance to all railway systems. It is pointed out that if the courts sustain President Ramsey in this action the question of railroad strikes will be settled. There is a marked diversity of opinion among the railroad officials re

garding the matter. All are hopeful that the Wabash shall win out and thus establish a welcome precedent, but many of the local railroad men believe the injunction will not hold. A hearing will likely be held in a few days, when some interesting discussion is looked for.

St. Louis Mirror.

Judge Adams may rightly be criticised for issuing his sweeping injunction order The order in the Wabash Railroad case. is another illustration of the disposition displayed by the Federal Courts to arrogate to themselves authority and power granted neither by the constitution nor the enactments of Congress. It justifies some of the apprehensions entertained by those who condemn "government by injunction." The order is, however, not without precedent. In its wide scope, it closely resembles that issued by Judge Jenkins, of the Federal Court, in Wisconsin, in 1893, by which the employes of the Northern Pacific were enjoined from going on a strike. The Jenkins injunction was, however, issued when the Northern Pacific was in the hands of receivers appointed by the Federal Court, and directed against men who proposed a strike on account of a threat to reduce wages. The order of Judge Adams may probably best be compared with the "Gatling-gun injunction" issued by the United States Court, in Chicago, in 1894, at the time of the "Debs rebellion," and which was afterwards approved of by the Supreme Court at Washington. Sweeping injunctions of this kind are justified by many on the ground that public peace and order demand it. Yet this alone, with all due deference to the august justices at Washington, does not justify their issuance. Omnibus injunctions in cases of this kind create bad feeling. They undermine respect for the constituted authorities and the law of the land. They intensify the spirit of rankling bitterness in labor circles, because they are taken to confirm the suspicion that the Federal Courts are more susceptible to the influence of capitalism than to consideration of the rights of the wage-earner. Strikes are, admittedly, a public calamity and a barbarously crude means of settling difficulties. as long as the law-making bodies have not provided different methods of adjustment, the Federal Courts have no right to act on their own hook and to supply in an unconstitutional that which the the lawmakers refused or failed to provide in a constitutional way. The British High Court of Chancery never assumed the authority to issue the extraordinary writ of injunction in cases of this kind, or in a manner so sweeping. It was always anxious to abide by well-established precedents. Of course, times and conditions have changed. They have not, however, changed so much as to warrant courts in assuming some of the functions of the law-giving body. A court of equity should not be allowed to invest itself with such far-reaching authority. Omnibus injunctions are neither in the interest of the

Yet,