The use of the injunction in labor troubles is recognized today as the trump card in the employer’s hand. Its paralyzing effect has been felt in every struggle of any importance between the working class and the employer. The one possible exception is the anthracite coal miners’ strike of 1902. In this instance the conciliation dope of the board of arbitration was used in its place. It has been more effective than the services of Strikebreaker Farley. It has paralyzed the efforts of labor to a greater extent than the hunger of the men and women on strike. In spite of its disastrous effect the real remedy for the evil has been given little publicity.

Adequate notice to the defendants before issuing the temporary restraining order; non-issuance except in such cases that it would apply were no strike or lockout involved; trial by jury of those charged with violation of the injunction are being put forth as a means to overcome its evil effects against labor. None of these methods of procedure provides even a semblance of relief, to say nothing of a cure. Each in itself is but another means of making the injunction effective in obtaining the result for which it was invoked. All these involve the organizations of labor in the tedious and costly processes of the employer’s courts. In the meantime the purpose of the injunction is accomplished. The workers, browbeaten and coerced by the illegal use of judicial power, become disheartened and are defeated. Deprived of every effective means of offense and defense, they are finally forced back to slave pens on the employer’s terms. The “privilege” of being granted a “hearing” before the writ is issued does not alter the case a particle. Nor will the “hearing” prevent the issuing of an injunction, if the interest of the employer demands, that it be issued. Trial by jury for those charged with contempt of court does not invalidate the injurious effect of the injunction in the least. All that it accomplishes is to force the employer to the additional expense of packing the jury to secure a conviction. At the same time the workers and their organization are involved in the additional heavy expense necessary to protect the rights of its members on trial. A law prohibiting the use of the injunction in labor troubles except in such cases where it would apply were no strike or lockout involved would be a farce. This the workers would soon discover to their cost. The very most that it would accomplish would be to force the employer to provide grounds upon which to base his plea for a restraining order. This, the past history of the labor movement proves, would be an easy matter.

No matter what victories might be won in court proceedings growing out of the use of the injunction, no matter how many jury trials resulted in freeing those charged with contempt, no matter how many restraining orders were set aside, it would not act as a bar to issuing of further injunctions in other instances or even in the same case. In all instances the delay of the “legal” processes and the lawyers’ fees and court costs would result in accomplishing the object for which the injunction was invoked–the defeat of the workers’ effort to better their condition.

All of this but demonstrates that the concessions sought and gained by the representatives of organized labor from the political parties representing the different groups of employing interests are without value to the worker. Their only effect will be to involve the workers and their organizations in an endless chain of court proceedings. The result will be to bankrupt their organizations and defeat their efforts for better conditions. Well might the employing interest grant this worthless boon to their humble petitioners.

There is but one method by which the workers can hope to defeat the use of the injunction. That method will not entangle them in the tedious and costly processes of their opponents’ courts. That method is continued and open disregard of the injunction; by the exercise of every right that it seeks to abridge. That disregard should be practiced by every member of the organization involved. If necessary to make the resistance of an injunction effective, every member of the working class in the locality should join in disregarding the same. Numbers, and concerted, determined action will make this method productive of results. For example, when Oily John’s man, Grosscup, issued the infamous restraining order in the American Railway Union strike of 1894. had every organization affected resisted its illegal provisions; had that resistance, if necessary, spread to every member of the working class, the injunction would have dismally failed as a weapon to defeat the A.R.U. Not only that, but it would have, ere this, been discarded as useless. Suppose that an injunction is issued against an organization of 10,000 members, restraining them from picketing, advertising, speaking to, or interfering in any manner with their employer or such employes as remain in his employ. Such a writ destroys all opportunity for the workers to make known their side of the difficulty to their fellow workers. Such a writ deprives the workers of all chance to gain the support of their fellow workers in their struggle. In short, but a writ deprives the workers of rights, that in equity, are as inalienable as the right to life itself.

Such a writ has no justification for its use except commercial necessity. Its violation is a duty that must be performed if the workers are to progress in their struggle toward ultimate freedom from wage slavery.

If these 10,000 workers, instead of following the usual course of allowing a few of their number to be selected as victims by the employers, and making a test case out of their arrest, would, as a body, ignore the court’s order, the injunction would be as powerless as a puff of wind. To accomplish this is an easy matter. Let every member take his turn on the picket lines and assume an equal share of the responsibility of nullifying the injunction. Instead of having to deal with six, ten, or twelve of the most active members of the union, the employer and his agents would be confronted with the task of proceeding against the entire ten thousand. This number, moreover, can, with proper organization and effort, be increased many times. The expense of finding jail room, of feeding, and of prosecuting so great a number of men becomes the means of breaking once and for all that particular injunction. Its intention is defeated by the overwhelming extent of the organized numerical opposition.

This plan of defeating the injunction also serves to call attention to the struggle as no other course would. It exposes the evil as it has never been exposed. It will compel the employer to cease the injunction method of defeating strikes. The cost to the workers in defending so many numbers would be materially less than any other line of action, regardless of the increased number involved, as one defense could be made for all. Furthermore, the fact that the expense of housing and feeding and prosecuting so great a number of people that would bankrupt any public treasury, would be driven home to the employers in vastly increased taxes.

This line of action brings out the task or organization and discipline necessary to make it a success. However great that task may be, it is one that must be carried out. Until this task shall have been completed, the injunction will continue to serve to defeat labor in every struggle of importance on the industrial field. To the task of organization and education, fellow workers, so that the victory may be brought near at hand!

Transcribed by Revolution's Newsstand