today are full of them, suits of employers against employees, or suits for relief against alleged illegal combinations, they are being tried on the equity side of the court in the state courts as well as in the federal courts in cases where there is a difference of citizenship. The American Bar Association proposes now to tell Congress we are not satisfied with this, but we want to give that class of jurisdiction in all cases to the federal courts of the country and take it away from the state courts. How? By this very language of the amendment, irrespective of the amount involved and irrespective also of the question of citizenship, you are creating a statutory jurisdiction in the federal courts precisely as under the Interstate Commerce Act. The act, section 7, says:

"Any person who shall be injured in his business or property by any other person or corporation, by reason of anything forbidden or declared to be unlawful by this act, may sue therefor in any Circuit Court of the United States in the district in which the defendant resides or is found."

And then it provides that he shall recover threefold the damages sustained and costs of the suit, including a reasonable attorney's fee. Now here comes in the new matter: "Or such person may bring suit in equity" in the Circuit Court of the United States without regard to the amount in controversy, etc.

Here are the two positions of the committee. We have investigated this subject to the best of our ability, and we regret very much our inability to agree with our associate. In the first place, we take the position that the right of protection is not created by the Sherman Act, but that it exists at common law and the courts of the land are at all times open to enforce it. We do not think that any public exigency exists for giving a statutory jurisdiction to the federal courts regardless of citizenship and regardless of the amount in controversy in this very important class of litigation, which strikes so nearly at the property interests and sometimes at the prejudices of our people. We think that in such a matter as this the Ameri

can Bar Association should move very cautiously. If the Association believes that a public exigency exists demanding this very large increase in the jurisdiction of the federal courts, particularly in the matter of the granting of injunctions, the majority of the committee will bow to the superior judgment of the Association, but we most respectfully submit that such an exigency does not exist.

Walter S. Logan, of New York:

I will try not to run away from this subject, as the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Ketcham) intimated I had. It was charged this morning that the majority of the committee had not had a sufficient opportunity to consider the bill in its present form, and in view of that charge I was willing to have the matter postponed for a year in order that they might have ample opportunity to examine the bill, and to agree with me if they desired to do so after fully considering the provisions of the bill in its present form. However, the Association has decided that the matter shall be settled now. If it is to be settled now, I wish to say that I am earnestly and determinedly in favor of the amendment proposed in the report of the minority of the committee. I believe that in passing that legislation Congress would be doing God's holy work. I believe that this Association in recommending it to Congress will be performing one of its highest duties and exercising one of its highest privileges.

I think Mr. Judson is entirely mistaken in the proposition that the Sherman law gives no new rights. It gives a multitude of new rights to the citizen. There were some monopolies, some combinations that were illegal before the Sherman Act, but there is a vast increase in the number that are illegal today under the Sherman Act. As to the monopolies and combinations that were illegal before the Sherman Act, the citizen was protected against those by his right to sue out an injunction in a court of equity. As to the combinations made illegal by the Sherman Act there is no remedy that a citizen can get under this act, and this amendment is necessary in order to enforce

the rights of the citizen. The Sherman Act as it stands today offers the citizen bread, but gives him a stone. It provides that he has certain rights, but the remedy for the enforcement of those rights it withholds from him. I say that the remedy should be as broad as the right. It is not increasing generally the jurisdiction of the federal court, as Mr. Judson would have you think; it is only increasing the jurisdiction of the court as far as the rights have been increased; it is providing that where by the Sherman Act a citizen is given a right he may, if need be, go into a court of equity to enforce it.

Now, sir, as we are to vote upon this question tonight—and I am entirely willing to vote on it tonight-I hope the American Bar Association will join with me in extending to the citizen the privilege of enforcing the rights which the law gives him in all the tribunals which he has the right to enter, and that he shall have the same right to proceed in a court of equity to obtain redress for a violation of his rights under the Sherman Act that he has to apply for redress for a violation of his rights under the patent laws of the country.

I hope, gentlemen, that the resolution of the gentleman from Indiana, my old friend on the committee with whom I have fought so long shoulder to shoulder, will pass.

Frederick N. Judson:

Will it not follow that in any suit under this act where the complainant alleges that the defendant combination exists in violation of the Sherman Act the federal court will have jurisdiction irrespective of citizenship and irrespective of the amount in controversy?

Walter S. Logan :

Yes, sir; wherever it is a right which is given to the citizen by federal statutes he will have the remedy of suing out an injunction in the federal courts.

Fabius H. Busbee, of North Carolina :

I am sure that everyone present will unite with me in the expression of relief that the gentleman from New York, the

sponsor of the report, has, in football parlance, gotten the ball again away from the gentleman from Indiana, and that the resolution is at last in the hands of Mr. Logan. It would seem also that gentlemen who have been in the habit of attending political conventions have an opportunity of revising the platform which, in 1896 and again in 1900, condemned "government by injunction." This is a distinct and deliberate effort to put the American Bar on record to the effect that the position which the country condemned in 1896 and 1900 was right, and that government by injunction shall be put forth as the platform of this Association. Because, gentlemen, while all the argument has been addressed to the oppressive unlawful combinations of capital, if there is any force in the language used in the minority report, it certainly can be held to justify injunctions against any and all bodies of strikers engaged in combinations deemed to be unlawful. It puts the federal courts. in absolute control, independently of the amount in controversy and independently of the citizenship of the parties, and in the effort to strike at unlawful combinations of capital it vests the federal courts with full power to enjoin any labor combination which is thought unlawful. Again, while it may be, and ought to be, honestly used, it puts into the hands of any lawyer an opportunity to blackmail every aggregated form of capital that can be charged with being a trust. It would be a most potent instrument in the hands of a weak judge or an agitating lawyer. Why, it is the easiest thing in the world to condemn trusts. The language of vituperation flows freely from the lips of many people in this country, and when one is not speaking before a court and to the facts, but is speaking generally, one can say easily: "Let us give any individual who thinks himself aggrieved the power to sue out an injunction without any limitation." I do not think such a statute will pass, but you have placed the American Bar, in a wave of enthusiasm, in advocacy of a doctrine which may be pregnant with very grave danger. It is not correct to say that this question was before the meeting in 1903. Members of the

Association will remember that the report of the committee at that time had nothing to do with the present subject. That report was not at all analogous or germane to this question. It is unjust to say that the distinguished gentleman from New York is the only member who was a member in 1903 favoring the report from the committee. The member evidently forgot the distinguished gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Whitelock, who was on the committee in 1903, and who now differs widely from the Chairman in his views. And the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Judson, in 1903 received the endorsement of the Association in the adoption of his motion. This question was not before the Association; and we had a different proposition which seems now to be buried. We have reports, majority and minority, which were presented to the Association at its meeting in 1904, but not in accordance with the rules, and therefore we had no right to consider them. So the reports are up now for the first time, and we are asked in a burst of enthusiasm to endorse language which may be pregnant with difficulties. No lawyer ought to hesitate for moment to endorse the most stringent legislation which could be aimed at restricting the power of the colossal combinations of capital, but when we are attempting to do that let us have our language carefully worded. Let us not, after the expenditure of all our rhetoric, reinstate government by injunction, for that is what it really is, which may be made an engine of oppression to labor as well as to capital.

William Hepburn Russell, of New York:

The suggestion of the gentleman from North Carolina that we are doing anything here by sentiment or that we are doing this in a wave of enthusiasm seems to me entirely apart from the practical phase of the discussion. So far as the proposition that this is government by injunction is concerned, I can say that we need not trouble about that. This is not a political question. I believe that the time has come when, a right having been granted by a congressional act, the Sherman law, and not having been extended to the point where the federal