The Daily Worker Newspaper, July 11, 1926, Page 2

Page Two THE DAILY WORKER aan : TTI, eee ke FURTHER STATEMENTS BY LABOR LEADERS AND PUBLICISTS ON INJUNCTIONS (Continued from page 1) Theodore J. Vind, president of the South Chicago Trades and Labor Assembly. O my mind a judge that will sentence women, some of them with babes in their arms and prospective mothers, to jail because they were fighting to improve their conditions and pro- vide themselves with the necessities of life commits the most brutal act of a judge in our present civilization. I think that over the door of every court room there should be placed the inscription: “All workers who enter here leave all hope behind.” In most of the struggles in which the injunction is made to play its part are between the employers on the one side, who fight to protect their unholy profits, and the workers on the other side forced by cirmumstances to battle for the necessities In this struggle the courts step in and seek to take out of the hands of the u the only weapon that he has—the right to fight for his ewistence. A good deal is said about “Americanism” and what con stitutes it. The worker who fights to protect himself, his fam- aly and his class and is forced to stand for conditions for whioh they accuse the Russian workers of standing for, to my mind, these kind of workers manifest the same kind of spirit attrid- uted to our forefathers who fought tyranny and injustice at all times. By William Mahoney, Editor St. Paul Labor Advocate. HE use of the injunction in labor controversies is a striking example of the misapplication of designedly beneficial latns. What was originally intended to prevent irreparable injury is now employed to cause irreparable injury. The present applica- tion of judicial injunctions in labor disputes is a radical depart- ture from the original purpose of this mandate, This practice of perverting laws to other than the purpose intended shows how important it is that every branch of govern ment be placed in the control of sympathetic hands if the work- ers expect to get protection from distinctly labor laws even. The penalty attached to the violation of the anti-trust law was first and most forcibly visited on a labor organization, the United Hatters—when the plain purpose of the law was directed at the evil practices of trusts. An unsympathetic court used the law against organized labor. TN view of this ewperience, the workers have come to look wpon the courts and especially the federal courts as foregone ene- mies, and have tried to keep away from them. During the past twenty-five years persistent and repeated efforts have been made to safeguard labor’s right by legislative inhibitions of the court’s wee of the injunction, and compel the differentiation be- tween human labor and property; but somehow the courts find @ way to misconstrue the intent of the legislature, and go right ahead and apply laws adversely to the labor organizations. Today the judicial injunction is the most potent weapon of the employing class to uphold their right to ewploit the workers without hindrance from union activity. In addition to enjoy- ing a strange regard for the sacredness of the courts, the latter have an effective way of making their orders stick. The courts occupy a super-sphere and are always responsive to the call of property interests. They have assumed the vital function of guardian of employing interests during their conflicts with labor. 'T\HE injunction more than amy other factor has served to make “the \trike unpopular with labor organizations and has thereby a stroyed the independence and militancy of the work- ers. The Daugherty-Wilkinson injunction in the railroad shop- men’s strike is looked upon as the fatal blow to the workers’ side of the contest. The same thing was true in the historic A. R. U. strike of 1894, when Judge Groscup sent Debs and his executive board to jail and broke the strike. The steady extension of court interference in labor disputes has reached a point of development at which a system of pre- soribed regulation has been developed. Just as soon as a strike occurs, the first thing the employer does is to sue out an in- funotion forbidding almost every move that might in any way ute to the success of the struggle. HE first effect is to paralyze the activities of the strikers and give the employer the opportunity to gain time to secure etrike-breakers. The repeated experiences of labor unions in Me process should forwarn them to be prepared to meet the | tfunotion proceedings more than half way. It should be a part of the strategy of the unions to anticipate the court moves the employers, and force immediate action. Time is one of . the most vital elements in the success of a strike. mt Just what to do in very case is difficult to prescribe. Some- Wes ft is even necessary to (disregard the orders of the courts ‘r*en the infunction is clearly a violation of the workers’ rights, there is no appeal from the court’s orders. However this F be done only in extraordinary cases. The late Presi- t Gompers of the American Federation of Labor with John ‘chel disregarded the orders of the court in the Buck stove but were never sent to jail. This happy outcome would not 4 in the case of @ striker. , Until labor has judges sympathetic with the interests of Phe workers, the courts will be used by the employers as weap- ons of defense and offense. J. L. Davidson, Organizer of the Chicago Joint Board of the International Ladies’ Garment Workers’ Union. Tam gladly accepting your invitation to give you my opinion ‘on the injunction menace to be printed in the special edition of the anti-injunction issue of The DAILY WORKER. For the labor movement in Chicago the fight against the injunction evil is a fight for the ewistence of the trade union movement, In the past few years the so-called house of justice has, under the famous equity law, practically broken every strike thru the injunctions against organized labor. This re- * sulted in almost every instance in the breaking of the union, as everyone knows that after a lost strike the wnion is so weakened it can hardly exist. I feel that only thru the united struggle of the workers, po- SSS EEE EES SPEND THE HOT SUMMER DAY AT FLAXMAN’S FARM! Come to the PICNIC SUNDAY, JULY 25 arranged by Karl Liebknecht Branch No. 153 W. C., and Fruit & Grocery Clerks’ Union. DIRECTIONS: Take car 60 on 5th St. Stop at Church Lane and bi walk two blocks to the right. eae et a an on a a pete a aR 4 t. It is tion con- igh time ‘forward ans. Only ig. litically and industrially, can we accomplish thiay: high time that organized labor met in an anti-inj ference and laid plans to get rid of this evil. It1 that labor gets together on the political field and. a United Labor ticket against the capitalist politiel by these methods can we hope to accomplish anyti Robert W. Dunn, Civil Liberties Union. To fight the strike-breaking injunction powers the courts certain lines of activity are open labor: 1. To exercise labor’s constitutional liberties of free speech, press and assembly even though this involvds the open violation of a court's picket-killing edict. This wilk as in the case of the Chicago I. L. G. U. workers, often mean filling the jails with labor’s best elements. This dramatic typeof protest is necessary. Y i 2. To bring impeachment proceedings, where possible, against the injunction-issuing judges; and to fight for anti-in- junction legislation in the senate and house of representatives of the United States, as wellas in the state legislatures. 8. To organize the unorganized. The stronger labor is unionized the more influential its voice in determining the policy of courts, legislatures and judges. 4. In this connection to fight particularly the company union and the yellow dog contract. It must not be forgotten that suppressive injunctions are often based upon the treacher- ous anti-labor operations of the boss-controlled company unions. For example the pending injunction of the Forstman and Huff- mann Co, at Passaic, N. J. is grounded upon the inspired re- quest for protection to scabs issued by a few company suckers connected with the company union. ’ 5. To organizeabvor politically. A réal labor party is the surest way to strike at the injunction weapon, now so menacing in the hands of the employers and. their legal agents on the bench. Only a Labor Party can deal an effective blow at in- junctions and the Tsardom of the courts. By Carl Haessler, Managing Editor, The Federated Press. NJUNCTIONS are an excellent weapon for the class that man- ages to control the courts. In America the employers con- trol the courts and the workers suffer from injunctions. Some day the workers will control the courts and the employers will suffer from injunctions. And on some still later day the em- ployers may perhaps be permanently enjoined from practicing their profession. Injunctions are all right. : J. F. Emme, Associated Textiles (Co-operative), St. Paul OST of our common law is an heirloom handed down to us from England, therefore finds itself in an ever*inereasing conflict with modern industrialism and all progressive social ideas. The growing evil of the injunction must be met and this can only be done by the workers repudiating and making wn- popular the issuance of injunctions in labor cases. The pro- cess must be just the opposite from what was used in advocat- ing and making possible labor legislation wnder the caption of the police power of the state. Nothing will be more effective in destroying the injunction than mass repudiation and viola- tion of the judge’s edict when injunctions are issued, Anna E. David, Secretary-Organizer Local No. 52, Millinery ' Workers’ Union, x Labor must fight the injunction—the bosses’ weapon to break strikes, by ignoring them, as the ladies’ garment work- ers did, and the whole labor movement should rally to the sup- port of those who have the courage to defy the injunction method of enslaving the workers. V. F. Calverton, Editor, The Modern Quarterly—Author of “The Newer Spirit.” [HERE are several ways of fighting the Injunction Menaoe, but only one way in which the fight can be maneuvered with success. To appeal to the vested in organized psqudo-inatinots of fair play and deo- Leaders of the New York Subway Strike Strike leaders discussing tactics to establish a genuine union to. dispose the |. R. T. com- pany union. Left to right, Harry Bark, Edward P.-Lavin and Joseph Phelan. eee GERMAN PROTEST STIRS BOSTON IN SACCO CASE; TWO WEEKS TIME GIVEN (Special to The Daily Worker) BOSTON, Mass., July 9, — The de- fense in the Sacco-Vanzetti case was granted an extension of time until July 16, to file affidavits in support of its motion for a new trial. The original two weeks expired yester- day. Attorney Thompson moved for an extension, which was granted by Judge Thayer. The news of the German protest caused comment in Boston. The con- servative Boston Herald in an edi- torial commenting on this news, ad- vices Governor Fuller to appoint a committee to investigate the evi- dence of the case before allowing sentence, Strike Cripples New York Subway (Continued from page 1) Sixty-five hundred police are on strike duty, on trains, at terminals and a This number is considered essential to keep traffic speed, on station platforms. moving even at minimum though the strikers total only 700. I. R. T. motormen have been get- ting 69 to 82 cents an hour, or $38.64 a week at first and $45.92 after six years’ work. Switchmen got 58 to 61 cents, or $32.48 a week at first and $34.16 in the third year, They all work- ed seven days a week. Ninety per cent of the strikers are married and 70% have children. They demand $1 ency may satisfy the sentimentalist and soothe the utopian, but it can only irritate the Marwian. Deriving its inspiration from the anti-combination acts of the nineteenth century, the . injunction is but another gesture of capitalist-justice. As long as military power, legal control and political jurisdiction rest in the hands of a class dedicated to individualism and devoted to private property, all attempts to obtain advantage, disperse injustice and equalize opportunity ,are futile and absurd. The Injunction Menace is but part of the Capitalist Menace. To fight the Injunction Menace successfully is to fight the Capitalist Menace successfully. The secret of success in this . fight is the economic class-conscious organization of the prole- tariat. "THD constitution of the United States, created by the Ameri- can bourgeoisie, is built upon the private-property conception. vised to dejend sotteqrestan mation The injunction is a defense of the rights of private-property. The capitalist judiciary is an exponent of tice. Any attempt, therefore, to fight the injunction in the. courts is as hopeless as trying to stem a sea. With the revolutionary organization of the workers, on the Its laws are de other hand, the capitalist sys defensive. The workers did introduced as a stab at ti mr is driven more and more tothe | tions, defense of injunction prisoners in shorter hours and better & {and relief for|their families, protest % | Sympathetic strikes, building of pow- as the result of their economic organization. They did the right to collective bargaining only to find the injunction privilege. If one kind of injunction \\| Yorkers at pr fails, another will be formed—to fight for the removal of one — kind of injunction is but to fight a futile battle, an entire revolution in cconomic life is the only successful fight WIDE USE OF INJUNCTIONS AS ANTI-LABOR WEAPON \ BEGAN WITH RISE OF TRUSTS By WILLIAM F, DUNNE, HE first injunction in the United States restraining workers was is- sued in Massachusetts in 1888—by a state court. - Ta rendering its decision the court took as a precedent the English case of “The Springhead Spinning Com- pany versus Riley,” in which the com- pany, in 1867, had secured from Vice- Chancellor Malin an injunction re- straining its striking employes from issuing placards and advertisements warning other workers that a strike was in progress, IX years later this decision was re- versed by the highest British authority—the court of chancery, The lord chancellors ruled as follows: The court of chancery had no Jur- isdiction to restrain the publication of a libel as such, even if it should be injurious to property. The Massachusetts decision, now a precedent for all injunction proceed- ings, was therefore based on a legal fallacy—an English precedent which had been thrown out of court four- teen years before the Massachusetts court based its ruling upon it. HE respect for “English common law” on the part of American courts is a myth and nothing more. Precedents established in English law are good or bad as they serve or hin- der the aims of the American capi talists. It was not long after the Massachu setts decision until the capitalists gen- erally began to recognize the value of injunctions as a weapon against the workers. The federal courts began to be used and the spread of the injunction menace coincides with the tremendous trustification of industry which began in the late 80’s and continued thru the 90's to the present day. 'N 1891 an injunction was issued by the United States circuit court of the District of Columbia restraining Typographical Union No. 3 of Cincin- nati from boycotting the “Common- wealth,” a newspaper in Covington, Kentucky, Then came the famous, or rather infamous, injunction issued in behalf of the mine owners of Idaho against the strike of the Western Federation of Miners in the Coeur D’ Alene min- ing district in 1892. This was the first appearance of the injunction in a mass struggle of workers against a really powerful capitalist group. EXT in order was the injunction is- sued on March 11, 1893, against the Brotherhood of Locomotive En- gineers by William H. Taft, judge. of the U.S. circuit court of the Southérn Ohio district. . : This injunction, from which Taft de- T rived his nickname of “Injunction Bill,” prohibited the officers and mem- bers of the Brotherhood from issuing any instructions not to handle, re- ceive 6r deliver cars to and from the Toledo and Ann Arbor Railroad Com- pany. In 1893 another injunction was is- sued against the Brotherhood of Rail- way Trainmen in behalf of the North- ern Pacific Railway enjoining it and its members From combining, or conspiring to- gether, or with others . . . with the design, or purpose of causing a strike , . . and from ordering, reo ommending or approving, or advis- ing others to quit the service of the receivers of the Northern Pacifio Railway on January 1, 1894, or at any other time. HIS injunction was followed by an- other in 1894 which ordered the trainmen to * Refrain and desist from ever ( combining, federating, or conspir ing together with others . . . with the design, or for the purpose of in- duging, or causing a strike by any of the employes of said receivers. The permanent injunction thus came to be an established part of American judicial procedure. It would seem that no further im- provements could be made in a legal mandate which prohibits workers for- ever from organizing or striking, or both, but the attorneys for the capi- talists, enamored of the broad vista of restriction which the injunction opened before them, discovered that its possibilities had not as yet been exploited fully. QO we find in the injunction issued te) for the Thomas G. Plant Shoe Company of Boston against the mem- ders of the United Shoe Workers of America, a clause prohibiting the anion From paying strike benefits to any of the former employes of plain. tiff now on strike. Then, in 1920, an Ohio judge re- strained striking molders From publishing, advertising, or circulating any statement, or decla- ration that there is a strike on, or pending at the plant of the plaintiff company, or that there Is a trade dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant, UT the bosses were not yet satis- T fied that every loophole thru t which the discontent of workers could express itself had been closed and the lawyer tribe was called into con- sultation once more. The result of their efforts was the injunction issued against the Minneapolis Trades and Labor Assembly in the Wonderland Theater case, This masterpice of master class legal trickery leaves nothing for strik- ing workers to do but surrender—un- less they are ready and willing to throw “legality” to the winds and mo- bilize their full mass strength against these suppressive measures, E Wonderland injunction prohib- ited members of the Minneapolis trade union movement , From carrying, or in any manner, or In any wise, exhibiting any b: ner, sign, reading, printing, dodger, card, cr any notice of any character having upon the same any state- ment that THE PLAINTIFF IS UN FAIR TO SAID DEFENDANT. From conveying, directly or Indl- rectly . . . by means of any act, or statement,-or printing of any kind, In the Minneapolis Labor Re- view or any other publication of said defendants . , . ANY STATE- MENT OF THE FACTS, OR FROM WHICH SUCH FACT COULD BE REASONABLY INFERRED, that the plaintiff and his said theater « + « was, OR IS UNFAIR TO OR- GANIZED LABOR, Vo. organize unions in order to use their mass strength to wrest higher wages, better working conditions, control of the job and a higher standard of living generally, from the capitalists who will surren- | der nothing that the workers have not the power to take. Injunctions such as we have quoted make illegal union organizations, strikes, picketing, publicity for a strike, payment of strike benefits, col- lections for strike relief, ete—if the unions obey the injunctions they cease to be unions, (ROM the cases cited to the injunc- tions oytlawing the strikes of hun- dreds of thousands of workers like the Anderson decree against the Unit- ed Mine Workers in 1919 and the Wil- kerson injunction against the Federa- tion of Railway Shop Crafts in 1922, has been but a step for the powerful, centralized and brutal capitalism of America thru its agency, the United States government. 4 Whether they wish it or not the unions, thru the use of the injunction in the interest of the capitalists, are. brought into conft'et with the wors.n- ment. They cannot say, as President Lewis of the United Mine Workers’ Union said in 1919, “we cannot fight our government.” The existence of the injunction process and {ts use against the work- ers shows that the government is not & workers’ government, i ie all its branches—city, county, state, and national-it sides with the capitalists. In the use of in- junctions against workets—making 4 jury trial impossible—this is particu larly obvious, Mass resistance to injunctions striles In spite of them, demonstra- an hour for motormen and 75 cents an hour for switchmen. Strikebreakers are receiving $1 an hour, plus board, lodging, and special ‘olice protection. When the scabs were photographed by newspaper camera men in the big I. R. T. barracks, all of them turned their faces away or hid behind hats—with the single exception of Alexander Farlinger, the ex-scenic railway man. He regarded the job as a lark and posed for the photographers, Submit Names, The strikers submitted, with an of- fer to arbitrate, the names of three prominent clergymen from whom a mediator might be chosen. The clergy- men suggested were William Mont- gomery Brown, recently deposed as a bishop by the Protestant Episcopal church; Rev. S. Parks Cadman, presi- dent of the Federal Council of Chur- ches; and Father Francis P. Duffy, chaplain of the 69th Infantry, But the company refused to arbitrate. Edward P. Lavin, Harry Bark, and J. G. Phelan are leading the strikers who have broken away from the ¢om- pany “brotherhood’ and who have formed a new union known as the Consolidated Railroad Workers, private-property jus- ~ erful uniong b; nt unorganized, « ration from the parties of the bo: a fighting party based on the unfons—only by these methods ca: the injunction, a peculiarly Aeris To fight for Angin ay wnt ¥