THE STRUGGLE FOR EQUALITY 237 



the tedious and costly appeals which have so often amounted to a denial 

 of justice in civil cases and to a failure to protect the public at large in 

 criminal cases." Still more significant is the approval of " such action 

 as may be necessary to simplify the process by which any judge who may 

 be found to be derelict in his duty may be. removed from office." 



II 



The current tendency to criticize the courts is nothing new. It has 

 existed ever since the foundation of the government. Jefferson de- 

 nounced the decision of the Supreme Court in Marbury v. Madison. 

 Jackson vetoed a bill renewing the charter of the United States Bank 

 on the ground that it was unconstitutional, although the Supreme Court 

 had pronounced a similar bill constitutional, and Lincoln strongly dis- 

 sented from the Dred Scott decision. Moreover, in at least three in- 

 stances the President has gone so far as openly to disregard an order 

 or a decision of the Supreme Court. Jefferson refused to answer to a 

 subpoena issued by Marshall for his appearance as a witness at the trial 

 of Burr. Jackson's celebrated remark, "John Marshall has rendered 

 his decision, now let him enforce it," will probably never be forgotten. 

 Lincoln ignored the opinion of Chief-Justice Taney that the suspension 

 of the writ of habeas corpus by presidential proclamation was unconsti- 

 tutional. States have also refused to obey the decisions of the court. 



Criticism of the courts is especially rife at present and promises to 

 become still more common. First, the readiness with which injunctions 

 are issued at the behests of employers in controversies between capital 

 and labor irritates the working classes. Blanket restraining orders 

 issued now and then without the parties enjoined having a chance to be 

 heard in court and occasional instances in which peaceful persuasion is 

 placed under the ban stir up bad blood and create the impression that 

 the courts are the -tools of the employing class. Amendment number 

 twenty-two submitted to the voters of Ohio in 1912 contained the fol- 

 lowing : 



No order of injunction shall issue in any controversy involving the em- 

 ployment of labor, except to preserve physical property from injury or destruc- 

 tion ; and all persons charged in contempt proceedings with the violation of an 

 injunction issued in such controversies shall, upon demand, be granted a trial 

 by jury as in criminal cases. 



This amendment failed to carry. Nevertheless, the large vote which 

 it received indicates much dissatisfaction with the manner in which the 

 courts at present issue injunctions and punish for contempt in labor 

 cases. This amendment received 240,896 votes as compared with 257,- 

 302 cast against it, though in limiting the injunction to the preservation 

 of physical property it forbade its use to protect the good-will of a busi- 

 ness or the lives of the community from intimidation and acts of 

 violence. 



