workingman nor the corporation. If they are now sought for by the latter at a time when the struggle between labor and capital is still undecided, they may be sought for, ten or twenty years hence, at a time when labor is in the ascendancy and in control of the whole machinery of government and law. Then the injunction may "return to plague the inventor."

Sioux City (la.) Journal.

At this distance it is difficult to pass upon the merits of the St. Louis case, and yet, in the absence of definite information, the supposition must be that the injunction will not stand. The right of an individual laborer to quit work when his employer refuses to grant satisfactory working conditions will never be denied in this home of individual liberty. The right of individual laborers to combine for the purpose of strengthening their side of the case in dealing with their employers can not be denied as a matter of law or justice. If the individual can quit work when he pleases the collection of individuals associated in an organization must be granted the same right. If this principle be denied organized labor is deprived of the only weapon it may legally wield in a contest of strength with employing capital. If Judge Adams' injunction shall stand the effect will be to compel á number of individuals by reason of their affiliation in a labor organization to continue working under conditions which are not satisfactory. Such a requirement seems to be wholly at variance with the spirit of our institutions.

Unless there is something in the StLouis case which has not appeared on the surface it is safe to say that Judge Adams' extraordinary injunction will not, if made permanent, withstand the test of the higher courts. It would be unfortunate for the relations of capital and labor if the contrary should be the case. The effort to make men work against their will is not one which can be successfully accomplished under our system of government, nor is it desirable that it should be.

Wheeling (W. Va.) Register.

The granting of an injunction in the United States Court in the Wabash case restraining officials of a labor union from ordering a strike is conceded to be next to a knock-out for organized labor. It lays the axe to the very root of unionism and almost completes the long list of recent judicial definitions of the status of trades unions in the law.

Dayton (O.) Herald.

This is an extraordinary order and goes beyond all previous attempts to govern by arbitrary exercise of judicial authority, and is the most sweeping ever made against labor organizations. To the credit of the employes, however, they are obeying it. But let us look at and analyze this order. No advocate of government by injunction will venture to assert

that it is unlawful for an employe to quit the service of a railway company, for any reason or no reason. Yet the effect of Judge Adams' order is to make it a crime for one man to advise another to do a lawful thing. Judge Adams menaces with imprisonment as a malefactor the man who "indirectly" encourages others to exercise their indisputable right to quit work. With all his executive power the President of the United States could not do that. Have we a creature greater than the creator? Is the judicial greater than the legislative branch of the government which furnishes the laws for it to interpret, or greater than the executive branch charged with the enforcement of the laws and the source from which the judiciary derives its existence? It is the function of the courts not to make laws at their own discretion. Persuading men to strike is not a crime in the United States, and no court can make it a crime. If Judge Adams is sustained in the action he has taken he may with equal warrant of law forbid a workman to ask an increase of pay, or enjoin a railway from discharging an employe, or from refusing to grant a request for higher wages.

Noting this case, Judge Tuley, of the Appellate Court of Illinois, says:

"The issuing of such writs of injunction brings the administration of justice into contempt. It breeds discontent, and the seeds so sown. we will reap the whirlwind some day from We judges are approaching a condition in which the governing power will be exercised by the judges, with the executives and legislators as mere figureheads."

This warning from a long-time occupant of the bench should be gravely considered by those who are seeking thus to invoke the injunction power beyond right and reason. They comfort themselves with the declaration that they represent conservatism against radicalism; yet such a policy is more dangerously radical than any of the methods of their opponents.

Dubuque (Ia.) Telegraph Herald.

The question in the case under discussion is whether the court had warrant of law in issuing the injunction. If it did not, then it has usurped authority. There are so many instances of record wherein this usurpation has been practiced that there is pressing necessity for fixing well prescribed limits upon the judiciary in the employment of the writ. The latter is an essential recourse in law, but we were better without it if it is to be unrestricted and permitted to multiply its oppressions and remain a constantly aggravating menace to individual liberty.

An eminent statesman has said that if the American people ever lose their liberties it will be through the agency of the courts. He uttered a great truth. When courts have, or usurp the power of prohibiting one citizen to give bread to another, when that other has been neither charged, tried or convicted of criminal wrong, as was the case in the infamous Jackson injunctions, or are prohibited

Philadelphia North American. Lawmakers, lawyers, judges and laymen who think and speak straight are almost unanimous in disapproval of the action of Judge Adams, of the United States Circuit Court, in the Wabash case.

W. M. Springer, of Washington, Formerly Chief Justice of the United States Court of Appeals in the Indian Territory, says:

"It has been settled by the highest courts in the country by numerous decisions, and the doctrine is no longer controverted, that workmen or employes possess the right to quit work singly or in a body by preconcert of agreement, provided only that they do not interfere with the rights of others, whether coemployes, employers, or the public.

"They have a right to seek an increase in wages by all peaceable means, and meetings and combinations to that end, if unaccompanied by threats, violence, disorder, or attempts to coerce, are not unlawful. They may agree in a body that they will not work below certain rates, and a strike to this end, unaccompanied by any of the foregoing elements, is not an offense.

"The doctrine laid down by the New York courts is this: "The law permits workmen at least with a limited territory to combine together and by peaceable means to seek any legitimate advantage in their trade. The increase of wages is such an advantage. The right to combine involves of necessity the right to persuade all colaborers to join in the action.'

"This right to persuade colaborers involves the right to persuade new employes to join the combination. This is but a corollary of the 'right of combination.' It is a well-recognized doctrine that the right to issue temporary injunctions should be exercised with great caution, and never except in case of urgent necessity, and where the acts enjoined are unlawful or amount to a nuisance.

"Applying the law as above stated to the language of the injunction issued by Judge Adams, it clearly appears that he has exceeded his authority. The parties against whom the injunction was directed were the authorized representatives of the firemen and trainmen of the railroad company. They had a right as such agents to order a strike. In doing this they were merely exercising the authority conferred on them by their colaborers.

"They also had the right to persuade their colaborers to desist from work, and they had the lawful right to induce their colaborers and new employes by all peaceable means to desist from work. Hence, in so far as Judge Adams sought by injunction to prevent such acts, he exceeded his authority."

Senator Depew.

I do not believe any such injunction can hold.

Des Moines (Ia.) Unionist.

even

This appears the most sweeping injunction ever issued by a court anywhere. The Jenkins decision in the Northern Pacific case, causing consternation among lawyers at the time, is so far outclassed that it may in the future be referred to as an infant injunction industry in comparison with the Adams Goliath. To add insult to injury, President Ramsey is said to have notified the firemen and trainmen's committees within two hours after the issuance of the injunction of the rejection of their demands.

That there is a growing contempt for courts is evidenced by the many public addresses of courts and attorneys in defense of decisions and practices. While people bow in submission to mandates of the Adams class, yet where is the fair minded man, whether he be judge, lawyer, or whatever else, that deep in his heart, does not view such sweeping writs of injunction with alarm? Labor organizations have petitioned, begged, pleaded with legislators for a more perfect interpretation of the conspiracy laws and consequent injunctions all to no avail. What else but contempt can ensue so long as a judge can render any mandate he wills, and have that mandate law until the tediousness of long drawn out and expensive trials are had.

The person so nobly coming to the defense of courts to the effect that there are no oppressions of labor by such courts can hardly be accused of telepathy with Judge Adams of the Eastern District of Missouri.

Sioux City (Ia.) Union Advocate.

Once again, and in the boldest manner possible, the courts of our free and glorious country have been applied to for assistance and a writ of injunction invoked and an order made restraining the grand and subordinate officers and the members of the Brotherhood of Railway Trainmen from "ordering, coercing, advising or permitting any strike or demonstration on the part of the Brotherhood" that will in any manner interfere with the business of the Wabash Railroad.

A single reading of the writ as issued by Judge Adams of the United States District Court will convince any one that it is the broadest and most sweeping injunction that has ever been issued in any labor disturbance or industrial dispute. The rights, privileges and liabilities of both parties in strikes, lockouts and boycotts have been officially determined, but nowhere has any previous attempt been made to restrain men from quitting their positions.

The Brotherhood of Trainmen were taken at a disadvantage in that they were waiting for a reply to a proposition submitted by them to the railroad asking for an increase of wages, and while these negotiations were still pending, and without

notice, the president of the railroad company sued out and obtained the order.

The United States Court decided long ago that men have the right to quit work. Some of the courts have held that they not only have a right to quit, but they have a right to peaceably persuade others to join with them, and they also have a right to establish pickets and by peaceable methods further their own interests by keeping the positions vacated by them unfilled. This injunction is the outcome of a long series of judicial wrongs. It is such orders as this that bring the administration of justice into contempt. The order is too broad. Judge Adams had no legal or moral right to anticipate that the Order of Railway Trainmen, as an organization, nor as individual members, were about or would attempt in the process of inaugurating and maintaining a strike commit any unlawful act.

The resort to the court by the president of the railroad company is in itself

sufficient evidence to convince a fair mind that the railroad company had good reason to believe that an arbitration board or any settlement that might be made in any manner would be against them and in favor of the men. The mean advantage that was taken before negotiations had reached the acute stage and while the matter might have been settled without any trouble or expense to either side by the railroad company, is further evidence that they are not inclined to look with favor upon the requests of the men for an advance in wages. It is a safe prediction, unless Judge Adams dissolves the injunction upon application of the Brotherhood, that the case will be taken to the court above and there reversed. The effect of the order will be a temporary suspension of the strike, but some other effective method of producing the same results will be figured out by those who control the affairs of the Brotherhood.

There is further reason to believe that

Judge Adams will not make the injunction permanent for the reason that no judge or court can restrain an American citizen from laying down his tools and proceeding to his home whenever he feels like it. ** * *

The Wabash Railroad Company secured an injunction against its employes before a strike had been declared. And yet some people maintain and argue that trades unions should incorporate in order to have standing in court. Perhaps the thought of the capitalist is that if incorporated he could secure an injunction restraining unions from making demands for more pay.

Hinton (W. Va.) Independent-Herald.

Such an order is undoubtedly unconstitutional and is as vicious as anarchy. Doctors and lawyers have a right to form unions, all admit. The very essence of these unions is to raise prices. Merchants have a right to fix a scale of prices and any class of workingmen have a right to fix a price on their labor. You may say

that viciousness and lawlessness and all that gets mixed up in those unions. We admit that. But if it were not for these unions men that are now paid $4.00 per day on the railroad here would be getting $1.10. And instead of the C. & O. R. R. dumping $40,000 per month in this town the pay-roll would be about one-fourth that amount. The more money you give the working people the better it is for the community. They are the people that spend money. These unions are right and they are for public good. A lot of clap trap may get into them, just as some people who wear the judicial ermine ought to be in the penitentiary. To say that labor has a right to organize but not to strike contains the following logic: Oh, mother, may I go out to swim? Yes, my darling daughter, Hang your clothes across a limb,

But don't go near the water. all right if it don't mean anything. An organization according to some is

St. Louis Labor Compendium.

The injunction issued by Judge Elmer B. Adams, of the Federal Court in St. bash Railroad, illustrates in its worst Louis, against the employes of the Wafeature the curse of government by injunction. That part of it which enjoins the men from persuading their fellowworkmen from striking is plainly and abmight just just as well have enjoined the solutely extra judicial. Judge Adams men from eating. A judge can not, by his mere ukase, change an innocent act into a crime. There is no law in the State of Missouri nor in any other of the United States, either judicial or statutory, which prohibits a man from striking or peaceably persuading other men to strike. The constitution of the United States guaranteeing to each citizen the right of freedom of speech interposes a shield between the Wabash Railway em

ployes and Judge Adams, which even his tyrannical and extra judicial mandate can not beat down. The Supreme Court of Missouri unanimously decided in 1895, in the case of Saxey vs. Hamilton, Brown Shoe Co., that men had an absolute unqualified right to strike and to peaceably persuade others to strike. In so deciding the court only reaffirmed the principles of common law, common decency and common sense.

*

*

tyrannical; it is silly, and it breeds for Judge Adams' injunction is not only the judiciary a contempt so widespread that it can not be reached by injunctions nor corrected by armed minions.

United Mine Workers' Journal.

to the welfare of organized and unorganized labor as that anti-injunction law. As matters now stand there is not a lawful right of the people but what is subject to the whim and caprice of judges. To go further, there is not a right accorded to American citizens by the supreme law of the land but what has been denied them by injunction judges. Scores of men have been sent to jail for doing that which they have a clear and lawful right to do. Scores of men have been sent to jail for exercising the privileges accorded them and guaranteed them by the organic law of the land.

There could be no fault found with the Hoar bill. It merely reiterated the constitutional right of a trial by jury. Beveridge is the man responsible for the continuance of the monstrous conditions whereby a judge may nullify every human right. Just what his qualifications for a Senator are have not been discovered. He is a master of cheap cant about "the flag." "our fathers," a coiner of prolix. periods and windy asserations; a mouther of somnolent gush and fantastical rhapsodies-in a word, he is a noisy, shallow, reservoir of meaningless bosh. He is a great admirer of John Chinaman. He visited China and filled the Saturday Evening Post with paens of praise for the "patient, tireless worker who cared nothing about who governed him so that he could find money to buy rice and opium." Beveridge put his love for the Chinaman to a practical test for he voted against the anti-Chinese immigration law. If the workingmen of Indiana were true to themselves they would permit Senator Beveridge to get his votes in the josshouses and opium dens. He has proved himself totally unworthy of the votes of the American workingmen. He has turned a deaf ear to every measure in Congress which they desired to become laws. His face has been as stone to every petition they have sent to Congress. Had the anti-injunction law passed Judge Adams could not have issued an edict to the Wabash employes, which at once strangled the most sacred rights of American citizens. Look at the pitiable grounds upon which this monstrous usurpation was based. The Wabash employes were not satisfied with their wages and conditions. In a courteous and respectful manner they asked for redress. This was refused. They then sent out a ballot asking each man whether he desired to continue at work and set a date to quit if dissatisfied. It was voted by an overwhelming majority to cease work if their pay was not increased. There was no coercion, no compulsion, every man voted his sentiments secretly. After holding out false hopes until he found a complaisant judge, President Ramsey sprung a surprise in the shape of the most sweeping abrogation of legal rights ever issued. He alleged conspiracy. President Ramsey owes this power to Senator Beveridge of Indiana. The railroad men, miners, organized labor of all trades, should join hands and drive Beveridge out of public life. It is idle to rave at effects-remove the cause.

Cleveland (0.) Artisan.

When a crusty and prejudiced judge issued an injunction against the United Mine Workers, last fall, forbidding them to feed their starving brothers under penalty of imprisonment, it was believed that infamous abuse of the injunction could go no further.

It has remained, however, for Judge Adams, of St. Louis, to outdo even that notorious "Don't Feed the Hungry" injunction by restraining employes of the Wabash Railroad from declaring a contemplated strike.

This is one of the most sweeping and iniquitous perversions of justice on record, and its importance is such that it can not be passed over without comment. ** ** *

The startling and sweeping nature of this injunction left the unions no alternative but to obey its requirements, and in view of the fact that no strike can be called by the brotherhoods without the sanction of the grand officials, there was a grim sort of humor in President Ramsey's remark as he left his office for home that night:

"No," he smilingly replied in answer to a question, "no, I don't believe a strike will be brought about!"

The attitude of the Wabash officials is rendered more intolerable by the fact that greater remuneration has been granted by practically every railroad in the country to employes this year, and that where an amicable settlement could not at first be arrived at, both parties have been willing to submit the point at dispute to arbitration, with the result that perfect harmony and co-operation has been established in every case.

* * **

When a great railroad positively declines to treat with its employes, disdains and insults their organization, and resolutely refuses to submit the question at issue to impartial arbitration, it is high time, in our opinion, for government intervention in the interests of public right, safety and convenience.

"I do not anticipate any trouble in securing men to operate the road if a strike should be declared," said President Ramsey.

This means that the exact, painstaking and skilled labor necessary to the conduct of a great railroad would be entrusted to a mob of "green," unexperienced and unreliable men gathered from the very scum of the great cities. The lives of thousands of passengers would be at the mercy of drunken, unprincipled "strike-breakers" or scabs, to be more plain-and millions of dollars worth of merchandise would be endangered. If the possibility of such a state of affairs doesn't merit government interference, what on earth would merit it?

Riots and bloodshed, instigated by employers in order to influence public sympathy against the strikers, wilful destroyal of life and property by gangs of cut-throat thugs and scabs--these merit (and always receive) federal interference, but it is the interference of armed militia, arrayed against the men who are,