페이지 이미지
PDF
ePub

The constantly widening competition of civilized life continually forces combination to control or suppress it. Combinations of capital and combinations of labor face each other on every field of industrial effort. The arbitrary power of the corporation and the trust are met by the tyranny of the trade union and the despotism of the walking delegate. The courts can no more prevent or restrain these combinations by orders of injunction and proceedings for contempt than they can stay the tides or the stars in their courses. So long as they produce no results which the legislature does not condemn by statute, and juries do not condemn by their verdicts, they should be let alone. Any evil which results from them can be better remedied by the legislature and by verdicts of juries than by the fallible discretion of single judges in the exercise of so-called equity powers, however honest and wise the judges may be.

It is idle to say that the popular complaint on this subject means nothing, or that, as one judge has said: “ Nobody objects to government by injunction except those who object to any government at all."

It does mean much. It means that the courts have, in the judgment of many of the most intelligent and thoughtful citizens and of congress, exceeded their just powers ; that they have by the so-called exercise of equity power practically assumed to create and to punish offences upon trial by themselves without a jury, and with penalties imposed at their discretion. And this means that if the courts continue in this course, their power to enforce their orders by proceedings for contempt will be limited by legislation. The people will not, and they ought not to, submit to decisions like those in the Northern Pacific and Ann Arbor cases.

The result will be to deprive the courts of the power to enforce orders which they ought to have power to enforce, and the mischief that will come can hardly be estimated.

The remedy is not by legislation. The subject is not one for partisan debate, and should not enter into politics in any degree whatever. Thoughtful, intelligent, conservative discussion by the profession will remedy the evil, and to that discussion all members of the bar who have the good of the republic at heart ought to bring their best effort.

1

INDEX

PAGE

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Reports American Bar Association, Vol. 17, p. 299

8

Reports American Bar Association, Vol. 17, pp. 15-51

9

Reports American Bar Association, Vol. 17, pp. 240-243

9

Political Science Quarterly, June, 1895, p. 1

9

The Law Quarterly Review, October, 1897, p. 347

9

Murray F. Tuley and others

10

Chicago Times Herald

10

Boston Journal, October 5, 1897

10

Boston Herald, October 2, 1897 .

11

The Independent, August 26, 1897

11

Spinning Co. vs. Riley, L. R., 6 Eq. 551

14

Assurance Co. vs. Knott

15

Sherry vs. Perkins

15

Casey vs. Typographical Union

15

Cour d'Alene Consolidated & Mining Co. vs. Miners' Union

15

Murdock Kerr & Co. vs. Walker et al.

17

Blindell et al. vs. Hagan et al.

18

Toledo, Ann Arbor, etc., Ry. vs. Pennsylvania Co.

19

Toledo, Ann Arbor, etc., Ry. vs. Pennsylvania Co.

24

United States vs. Workingmen's Amalgamated Council of New

Orleans et al.

26

Southern California Ry. Co. vs. Rutherford et al.

28

Farmers' Loan and Trust Co. vs. Northern Pacific R. R. Co. et al. 29

Fifty-third Congress, Report Judiciary Committee

29

London Law Times, 97, 384-5

32

United States vs. Debs .

36, 41

United States vs. Elliott et al,

36

Thomas vs. Cinncinnati, etc., Ry. Co.

37

China Co. vs. Brown et al.

38

United States vs. Patterson

38

Barr et al. vs. Essex Trade Council et al.

39

Elder et al. vs. Whitesides et al. .

40

Attorney-General's Report, 1896, Appendix, p. 10

44

Attorney-General vs. Corbett et al.

49

Shoe Company vs. Saxey

51

Davis vs. Zimmerman

51

Vegelahn vs. Guntner et al. .

51

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[blocks in formation]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Flood vs. Jackson

The Times, L. R., Vol. 14, p. 125

Curran vs. Galen.

Consolidated Steel, etc., Co. vs. Murray

Nashville, etc., Ry. Co. vs. MacNiel.

Mutual Life Ins. Co. of N. Y. vs. Boyle, Attorney-General, et al.

Swaine et al. vs. Blakemore et al.

Hopkins et al. vs. Oxley State Co.

Lynch et al. vs. Boston et al.

Boston Daily Advertiser, January 25, 1898

Argument Attorney-General, Debs case, pp. 6, 7

Sections 3, 995; 5, 440; 5, 508 U. S. Rev. Stats.; Ch. 647 U. S. Laws

Report U. S. Strike Commission, 1894, pp. 18, 143

Attorney-General's Report, 1896, Appendix, pp. 18, 20.

Attorney-General's Report, 1896, Appendix, pp. 42, 44, 51, 53, 62 .

Attorney-General's Report, 1896, Appendix, pp. 64, 66

Attorney-General's Report, 1896, Appendix, pp. 90, 93

Attorney-General's Report, 1896, Appendix, pp. 95, 140, 164, 165

Attorney-General's Report, 1896, Appendix, pp. 173, 177, 194

Attorney-General's Report, 1896, Appendix, p. 196 .

Senate Bill, No. 237, First Session 54th Congress

Senate Bill, No. 2,984 .

Congressional Record, June 10, 1896

Chapter 12, U. S. Rev. Stats.

Act to Establish Trial by Jury in Cases of Contempt, etc., Kansas

Henry VII, ch. 1 .

Institutions of the English Government, Cox

Reeves's History of English Law

Spence, Equitable Jurisdiction .

Madison's Journal Constitutional Convention

Clarendon's History of the Rebellion

State vs. Crawford

Kansas Laws, 1881

Kansas Laws, 1885

Kansas vs. Ziebold

N. H. Laws, 1887, ch. 77

State vs. Saunders

Mass. Laws, 1887, ch. 380

Carleton vs. Rugy, 149 Mass.

Rapalje on Contempts

Arnold vs. Commonwealth

Worthington vs. Waring

High on Injunctions

Boyd vs. State

« 이전계속 »