—————
Hellraisers Journal – Tuesday July 29, 1902
Parkersburg, West Virginia – Judge Jackson re “Organizers” and “Agitators”
From The Pittsburg Press of July 24, 1902:
JUDGE WAS SEVERE ON MINERS
[…]
Parkersburg, W. Va., July 24.-There was the most intense interest in the crowded room of the United States District Court this morning when Judge Jackson began reading his lengthy decision declaring “Mother” Mary Jones, the angel of the miners, and seven other organizers of the United Mine Workers and four Hungarians to be guilty of contempt of disregarding his injunction of June 19, against holding a meeting or creating a demonstration at or near the Pinnickinnick mine of the Clarksburg Fuel Co., or near the residence of miners at work. Judge Jackson, after concluding his decision, sentenced the defendants as follows:
Thomas Haggerty, 90 days in jail; Wm. Morgan, Bernard Rice, Peter Wilson, Wm. Blakeley, George Bacon, Thomas Laskavish, 60 days each. “Mother” Jones’ sentence was passed till afternoon. It is said she will receive a stiff fine and will not be jailed. Albert Repake, Joseph and George Roeski and Steve Teonike, Hungarians, passed until the afternoon session……
[Photograph and emphasis added.]
Ruling of Judge Jackson, July 24, 1902:
UNITED STATES ex rel. GUARANTY TRUST CO. of NEW YORK
v. HAGGERTY et al.
(Circuit Court, N. D. West Virginia. July 24, 1902.)[Part II of II]
In the case we have under consideration the bill alleges that there is a combination of persons who are known as “organizers,” “agitators,” and “walking delegates,” who come from other states for the purpose of inducing a strike in the soft coal fields of the state of West Virginia; that their object and purpose is to induce persons who are not dissatisfied with the terms of their employment, and who are not asking any increase in their wages, to cease work for their employers, thereby inflicting great damage and injury upon them. It is to be observed that a very large portion of the miners in the employ of the Clarksburg Fuel Company do not want, in the language of one of the agitators who is enjoined, “to lay down their picks and shovels and quit work.” I do not question the right of the employes of this company to quit work at any time they desire to do so, unless there is a contractual relation between them and the employer which should control their right to quit. At the same time I do not recognize the right of an employer to coerce the employes to continue their work when they desire to quit. But can it be said that where a conspiracy exists to control the employes, as in this instance, either by threats, intimidation, or a resort to any other modes usually accompanying the action of strikers, that such action upon their part is not only illegal, but a malicious and illegal interference with the employer’s business? The question is its best answer.
While I recognize the right for all laborers to combine for the purpose of protecting all their lawful rights, I do not recognize the right of laborers to conspire together to compel employes who are not dissatisfied with their work in the mines to lay down their picks and shovels and to quit their work, without a just or proper reason therefor, merely to gratify a professional set of “agitators, organizers, and walking delegates,” who roam all over the country as agents for some combination, who are vampires that live and fatten on the honest labor of the coal miners of the country, and who are busybodies creating dissatisfaction amongst a class of people who are quiet, well-disposed, and who do not want to be disturbed by the unceasing agitation of this class of people.
In the case we have under consideration these defendants are known as professional agitators, organizers, and walking delegates. They have nothing in common with the people who are employed in the mines of the Clarksburg Fuel Company. The evidence in this case shows that their only object and purpose is to get the people who are in the employment of the Clarksburg Fuel Company to go out upon a strike, as it is termed, for the purpose of compelling the owners of the mines to advance an increase in their wages. It discloses that the miners in the Pinnickinnick mines are making an average of $4 a day in excess of their legitimate expenses, many of whom have worked in foreign countries for less that a half a dollar a day. The defendants in this case are not laborers in the mines, and have no connection with them whatever. Their mission here is to foment trouble, create dissatisfaction among the employes in coal mines, producing strikes, which tends greatly to damage and injure the business of the employers. In this case there is no dissatisfaction among the larger number of the miners. Only a small part of them have quit the mines from fear of intimidation, threats, and violence, but those remaining in the mines say they will quit work unless they are protected against the threats of these agitators and organizers. The strong arm of the court of equity is invoked in this case, not to suppress the right of free speech, but to restrain and inhibit these defendants, whose only purpose is to bring about strikes, by trying to coerce people who are not dissatisfied with the terms of their employment, which results in inflicting injury and damage to their employers, as well as the employes.
It is apparent that, if these agitators are permitted to interfere with the orderly, well-disposed miners who are anxious to work, and contented with the wages they receive, in the end this contented class of miners would, through fear, intimidation, as well as threats, be induced to throw down their shovels and picks, and cease to work in the mines, whereby the Clarksburg Fuel Company would be greatly damaged. Not only would it be greatly damaged, but it would be prevented from fulfilling its contracts for the future delivery of the product of its mines. The right of a citizen to labor for wages that he is satisfied with is a right protected by law, and is entitled to the same protection as free speech, and should be better protected than the abuse of free speech, in which the organizers and agitators indulge in trying to produce strikes.
The utterances of “Mother” Jones in her public address at or near the Pinnickinnick mines on the 20th day of June, 1902, should not emanate from a citizen of this country who believes in its institutions. Such utterances are the outgrowth of the sentiments of those who believe in communism and anarchy. It is idle for this class of people to attempt to shield themselves from, not only a just criticism of their principles, but from their violations of law and order, by citing and relying upon the principles contained in our immortal Declaration of Independence, inspired by the pen of Thomas Jefferson, and also the first article to the amendment of the constitution of the United States protecting “freedom of speech.” The rightful exercise of freedom of speech is not denied, but the abuse of it. Its unrestricted license has always been open to the animadversion and condemnation of the law. No publicist or statesman loyal to his country ever claimed that free speech gave the right to any one to advocate and defend treason to his country, or destruction to its institutions. The abuse of free speech is the germ or vital element upon which anarchists feed and formulate their conspiracies against the government and rulers of nations, whose only object and purpose is a desire to destroy the social and political form of all governments. The abuse of free speech inspired the anarchists and assassin to take the life of our late beloved president. May I not respectively ask the question whether it is not time for our lawmakers, both federal and state, to consider the question whether freedom of speech should not be so restricted by statutes as to suppress seditious sentiments.
Under this condition and the circumstances surrounding the mines of the Clarksburg Fuel Company, the plaintiff in this bill applied for an injunction, which was granted by this court, to protect its property, and to restrain the defendants in this case from interfering with its employes in operating and working their mines. It is contended by one of the counsel for the defendants in this case that the injunction was too sweeping in its character, and should be modified; while another counsel for the defendants thought that there was no objection to the terms of the injunction, but contended that the order of injunction as granted by the court had not been violated. The right and power of a court of equity to issue an injunction upon the allegations of this bill cannot, at this day, be questioned.
Numerous decisions could be cited to sustain this position, but the only case that the court deems necessary to refer to to sustain its power and authority to issue this injunction is the case of In re Debs, 158 U. S. 564, 15 Sup. Ct. 900, 39 L. Ed. 1092. It is true that the bill in that case was filed under the interstate commerce act, but it is equally true that the general principles of law upon which that bill was filed and sustained are as applicable to cases of the character that we have under consideration as they were to that case. It is well established that courts of equity may be resorted to to redress grievances, “where the object sought cannot be as well attained in the ordinary tribunals of the country.” In the case under consideration there is no adequate remedy at law. In fact, the law furnishes no satisfactory remedy against irresponsible, itinerant, professional agitators unless the powers of the courts of equity are invoked. This was conceded by Debs in his testimony before the United States strike commission, referred to by Justice Brewer in his case.
So far I have only considered the power and authority of the court to award the injunction in this case. This brings me to the consideration of the question of contempt, and whether or not the defendants in this case have violated the injunction of this court. The evidence in this case shows that all the defendants were served with copies of the injunction prior to the order of arrest; that a portion of them was served on the morning of the 20th of June; that in the afternoon of that day they assembled at and near the Pinnickkinnick mine, a mine of the Clarksburg Fuel Company, and there held a public meeting [Note: on private land, lease by UMW], a distance of about 1,000 feet from the opening of the mine, about 150 feet from the property itself, and not far from the houses of the miners, all of which places were in plain view and sight of the people holding the meeting; that the principal speaker was Mrs. Mary Jones, who was known by her co-agitators, organizers, and walking delegates as “Mother” Jones; that at the meeting all of the defendants were present, applauding and cheering her while she was making her speech, and indorsing the sentiments that she uttered upon that occasion; that Thomas Haggerty, one of the leaders of the agitators, stated “that the injunction didn’t amount to anything; that it was a farce, and would not stop and prevent other men from taking their place in the event that the court en- joined them from interfering with the miners.”
The evidence shows that Mrs. Jones called the miners slaves and cowards; she criticised the action of the court, and said she did not care anything for injunctions; that if they were arrested, or anything done with them, the jails would not hold the agitators that would be there to take their place; that it was the duty of every man there to urge the men that were at work in the mines to lay down their tools; she said that if she or any of the agitators were arrested others would take their place, and the injunction would not stop them; she advised the men to strike; she stated that it was the duty of all of them to influence the men at work to lay down their tools; she further stated that if they would come to Illinois they would be taught how to fight, and then they could come back and take care of themselves; she stated that the judge was a hireling of the coal company, that the coal operators were all robbers, and that the reason that the court stood in with them was that one robber liked another; she said in her speech to pay no attention to Judge Jackson or the court; for them not to listen to Judge Jackson, or any one else, or pay any attention to the court, but just make the miners lay down their tool and come out. This was the concurrent testimony of nine witnesses as to the material facts who were examined upon the rule for contempt, and the evidence was uncontradicted as to those facts; but there was a difference in the recollection of the witnesses as to what “Mother” Jones said about the court. It is true that “Mother” Jones denied some of the statements of the witnesses, but her denial was not positive, but equivocal. She admitted on the witness stand that she stated in her speech “not to fear injunctions.” She admitted in her answer to this question put to her: “Wasn’t your purpose to go as near to those mines as you could to hold that meeting without a violation of the injunction? Were you in your judgment violating the injunction?” Her answer was, “Perhaps that was.”
It must be evident to every unprejudiced mind that the object and purpose of these agitators was to hold a meeting so near the mines of the Clarksburg Fuel Company as to alarm and intimidate the miners that were at work in the Pinnickkinnick mines, and in the language of Mrs. Jones to get them “to lay down their picks and shovels and quit work.” The evidence discloses that Haggerty, Morgan, Wilson, Rice, and the other defendants were present at this meeting, took an active part in it, applauded the speech of Mrs. Jones, indorsed her sentiments, and at the time of their arrest advised the miners to continue the strike. It is in evidence that, after Haggerty was released upon his recognizance, one of the conditions of which was that he should not violate, incite, aid, encourage, or abet the violation of the injunction of the court granted in this case, directly or indirectly, either in spirit or in letter, presided at a public meeting, in which the action of this court was criticised and denounced for granting this injunction, at which time it is alleged that the principal speaker upon this occasion stated that the judge should be impeached, while the court had their cases under consideration.
It is in evidence that they rented an unoccupied lot to hold their meeting in the open air, where they all assembled, and Mrs. Jones addressed the meeting. We must infer from the evidence what their purpose was. They were forbidden by the injunction “from assembling together, in camp or otherwise, at or near or so near the mines of the Clarksburg Fuel Company, or at or so near the residences of its employes, as to disturb, alarm, or intimidate such employes so as to prevent them from working in the mines, or to prevent or interfere with them in passing to or from their work at the mines, or in otherwise interfering with them as the employes of the Clarksburg Fuel Company.” There can be no question that the defendants violated this clause of the injunction, for they assembled within I,000 feet of the tipples and opening of the mine, within 300 or 400 feet of the residences of the miners, and within about 150 feet of the property of the Clarksburg Fuel Company. It is further disclosed in the evidence that the miners, in passing to and from their homes to the mines, had to pass near the place where the meeting was held, which was within plain view of the mines. And the evidence further shows that the noise and confusion created by the meeting could be heard distinctly at the mouth of the mines and where the tipples were; that those who were working in the mines were constantly sending out by the employes engaged in hauling the coal to the tipple for news, which was carried back to the miners, creating more or less alarm, disquiet, and intimidation to those working inside of the mine, and that “they were afraid of personal injury and being blown up.” As a result of this meeting, quite a number of miners left their work, and other persons who were employed to take their places were prevented from doing so by this agitation and excitement.
I reach the conclusion that the defendants in this case, who were served with notice of this injunction, have violated it, and have treated with contempt the order of this court. As a consequence of their action, this court will have to punish them for their contempt in violating this injunction. It would have been far better for them to have pursued the usual legal methods by moving the court either to dissolve or modify the injunction; and Mrs. Jones admitted on the witness stand that she “knew very well that if she and her confederates wanted to test the injunction the way to do it was to come into court and have it dissolved.” Instead of pursuing that course, they elected to defy the court’s injunction, and openly disregarded their duties as good citizens of the country by setting a precedent in open defiance of the injunction, which tends to promote disorder, which, if permitted to go unpunished, would sooner or later lead to anarchy.
I cannot forbear to express my great surprise that a woman of the apparent intelligence of Mrs. Jones should permit herself to be used as an instrument by designing and reckless agitators, who seem to have no regard for the rights of others, in accomplishing an object which is entirely unworthy of a good woman. It seems to me that it would have been better far for her to follow the lines and paths which the Allwise Being intended her sex should pursue. There are many charities in life which are open to her, in which she could contribute largely to mankind in distress, as well as avocations and pursuits that she could engage in of a lawful character that would be more in keeping with what we have been taught and what experience has shown to be the true sphere of womanhood.
—————
[Emphasis and paragraph breaks added.]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
SOURCES
Plea for Justice, Not Charity, Quote Mother Jones
MJ to HD Lloyd, Apr 19, 1903, Steel, Correspondence
https://books.google.com/books?id=EZ2xAAAAIAAJ
The Pittsburg Press
(Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania)
-July 24, 1902
https://www.newspapers.com/image/141914625/
UNITED STATES ex rel. GUARANTY TRUST CO. of NEW YORK
v. HAGGERTY et al.
(Circuit Court, N. D. West Virginia. July 24, 1902.)
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.b3556528&view=1up&seq=545&skin=2021
IMAGE
Judge John Jay Jackson, Cnc Pst p1, July 24, 1902
https://www.newspapers.com/image/761305990
See also:
Hellraisers Journal: United States v Haggerty et al.
Judge Jackson Rules Against United Mine Workers of America, Part I
In re Debs
https://www.britannica.com/topic/In-re-Debs
In re Debs, Latin: “In the matter of Debs”, legal case in which the U.S. Supreme Court, on May 27, 1895, unanimously (9–0) upheld the government’s use of the injunction against a labour strike, specifically the Pullman Strike (May 11–July 20, 1894).
In re DEBS et al.
U. S. Supreme Court, May 27, 1895.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/158/564
Tag: Mother Jones v Judge Jackson 1902
https://weneverforget.org/tag/mother-jones-v-judge-jackson-1902/
Tag: West Virginia Coalfield Strike of 1902-1903
https://weneverforget.org/tag/west-virginia-coalfield-strike-of-1902-1903/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Which Side Are You On? – Tom Morello, The Nightwatchman
Across this great old nation, tell me what you gonna do
When there’s one law for the rulers and one law for the ruled.