Show USE AND ABUSE t t OF INJUNCTIONS Secy s cy Taft Gives His Views hews j ws in An Answer Ane Answer e to tabors Labors Criticism 1 I cism of Him HimL r tk l 4 L ti JH L S UNIONS BENEFICIAL B di j tf X XI i ID III J 1 if rf I I 1 S In lii Hi h IHL I rl Kerry rl CO 0 Ot Jan Jun St The Tle views lew gr iI WillIl ir II Taft Tatt of o war var III In urd to tho Urn tiso uso ui tu II tl or of 11 uto uru staled In lii u In s reply re l tol to by b bt t I I ol 01 o tim thu i J OhIo Vt t I jabur bor ul IV en r hea er v t in cy Taft raft prefaces hw with it Li dC I l Ihu t nu flU rt j v It Il to t bo 10 b t U I I lawful J tul t uI fur for lu to lu lulu lu it in 1 common TAITS AN k kf f directly lo iu tin thc Ih ji I o oli ot UI Ih II LLY li ou Oll lIt K me Illo 1 l houd it the 01 ot a U law i Ing the he ruses tien m In u II fla lI a may nitty 1111 Issue JUKI Ue tie in it vuie tim Uio In Iii Sudi uth order may nUl Do Im i inet ise I r net lie se no po J tJ hI tIll tut ot OC otI u statute I of 0 HI lu their t Ill II with their former ormo employers Aa As HUB I I I i lix t the tho mil lUlL ou ot noll au lLe It H would u I t definite rule rub for iho east p in n h leh Injunctions III t I II issue as aI m q veil las their and 1111 It t l Im j Bald thuL tills statute How If It enacted by hY could lu IU u lato atO to the J u o cC Columbia er r t on place within tho this exclusive t Jurisdiction ot U tho Iho I or tn those full and Wh fr relations laIU n alc ar Ii 6 U l dominion l anti and control V the Uie lav governing the th relations bu bo bow 0 w tween employer ana Is a H law Jaw ami In Ii only enforced rc cd In the IhU I I federal al com courts In when the jurisdiction i arisen by b reuBon of ot the tim diverse i e ot of tho 1110 parties Speaking gen ijen geni i trully rully I both as its to federal and legislation le I 1 see ee no objection to Lo toa toU a U which shall so 80 far as iossi possible ble define Adeline the of o both hoth parties s sIn In SUCh auch s ch controversies more Indeed the moro i exactly the tho law ot of on the thu OC both pur ties lies ue ore aix understood tho better for tur them thom and ond for tor tho the public ON O APPLICATIONS ONS rt Second You nik nek me ale what I think at ot tl a 1 proposition that no l order or or Injunction on shall except after utter to tn defendant mid and a 1 Is 11 had hilLl This was wall tho the rule rub un under 1 tier der the federal e ml rot for 01 many ninn j yeara ear i but It was US abolished In hI Inthis If this thu of or CA PH to you leIo II II I do not BP lie any objection to reenact nf of that statute Indeed I Iii ii have taken occasion to Hay say In public that the tho power powel to tu issue In Injunctions 1 junctions has hall given hm riso to Lo corwin a and Injustice to tu tim the la Ia In lit Inn a strike Men 1 on a I counsel for the employer applies to a Il judge anti and presentS nn III aver VIII rIn eat of or violence ana antI IcI u 11 J se on fill tho tito statement that the tho 11 fc ls rallied tipOti hi n It temporary t Injunction Th rh temporary order Is 15 on 1 all the I they the me ate not lawyers their foam oars are aro aroused by the tho process with wHit which they are not no noI ii I acquainted luul although their pur purpose purI I pose may ma have hit been entirely lawful If their common determination to carry 11 through the tho strike ls is weakened by an nn order or er which they never have hart hod an nn opportunity to and which Is calculator to t discourage their action To avoid this I 1111 11 I already said raid that thal tho tito federal Jil might wt wo ll be hf outdo mud what It Il was vas notice ana ano anaa anoa a Il hearing an tot Injunction Issue Third Tn to question It Iti i s leom th t It Is III i lo In J oily any limitation as al to tn the tile for tor a II h It If before berol an iu can cnn Issue at till all notice and tool hear henr lug must be II given Riven Tho question IR Is relevant rl and anti proper only should the tho power of Jt Injunctions bo be In the tho ourt In such caso I should think It prop proper that the should require tile th court Is 18 Issuing I suing In tin an n Injunction to give tho the against whom tho Injunction Injun was waR issue nii n opportunity to havo a ti thereon within a 11 very verv short hort space of ot limo flirt lurt to I r should say MV three or tour four n II OBJECTIONS TO JUDGES Fourth I Your fourth query fluery l Is In Iii ef or effect what I 1 should think of or a It provision In such by b which the tho contemnor that Is 10 th person with tho the violation of ot an order or object to the who Issued the tho Injunction as ns tho one ono to try tho the Issue t whether the Injunction had hal been Iwen Il violated and to fir x punishment In case of ot conviction and lid thereby require rl an nn another other judie to try tho the Issue and Impose sentence AJ if It 11 lI In III federal courts In such a n case CASC It would bo ho proper to provide that the senior circuit judge of ot tho the circuit court Ilie 1111 application of o tho the de do defendant fondant or contemnor designate de another er el dIstrict dl or circuit Judge to sit and hear hoer tho Uto Itsue presented J I do not think I such uch n a restriction would be he unreason unreasonably m I ably able 1 In most cases canes It would be b essary callary But Hut I admit that there th rn In I a n popular 1 tint that In contempt pro proceedings und aist the very name of ot the pro proceeding It ii the tho the Injunction has H K personal P sensitIve na nH In respect to Its violation and therefore that hn ho do d s not to the tho trial of the lestie presented by hll the charge of the tho of ot his order the taInt culm judicial mind mine which Insures Jus Justice Justice Justice tice I think that this popular J r feeling Is in most unfounded hut I bu be build ild v that It is IR hotter botter Whole hero it can cin be bedone bedone done without InJurIng the authority of or ortho tho the court and the of or its It ro rn COM coca to grant such flueh a privilege nf ot tite and thus thull Avoid wold an lin appear appearance anco ance of ot Injustice oven even at Incon Inconvenience In the thu matter manor of securing an another outer other Judge WEAKEN Wl AUTHORITY Thero There Is III some som though It Is 15 not nol complete between tho the exclusion of or ofa a Judas from sitting In tim th court of to review a decision of hi his own which now obtains in tho the practise of ot the federal court of ot appeals by statute and the present suggested ca ease o It Is III 1 of ot tin th highest that tho author authority authorIty ity It of ot tho tito court COUlt to enforce lUt U own or 01 n tiers der effectively should thou hI not nut bo Ito weakened II II nod and therefore I am attn to 10 the tho In of or u IL Jury between the ll its 1111 by b 11 1 It II would mean lone boa delay dolay and Weaken the authority ot of the eUrt 11 urt I 1 tin tIe not think I U LItt vt the t IC per por to tho thu judge would either r delay or lr tho tim of or tho the older whIle It rna secure greeter till public confidence III in tit 11 of or the tho courts action Tho The appeArance of ut In is almost us as II Im un Important J an is H the Iho It In the tho ad oil administration ministration of ot courts Sincerely yours your H IL |