Another labor question has arisen which has awakened the most excited
discussion. That is in respect to the power of the federal courts to
issue injunctions in industrial disputes. As to that, my convictions
are fixed. Take away from the courts, if it could be taken away, the
power to issue injunctions in labor disputes, and it would create a
privileged class among the laborers and save the lawless among their
number from a most needful remedy available to all men for the
protection of their business against lawless invasion. The proposition
that business is not a property or pecuniary right which can be
protected by equitable injunction is utterly without foundation in
precedent or reason. The proposition is usually linked with one to make
the secondary boycott lawful. Such a proposition is at variance with
the American instinct, and will find no support, in my judgment, when
submitted to the American people. The secondary boycott is an
instrument of tyranny, and ought not to be made legitimate.

The issue of a temporary restraining order without notice has in
several instances been abused by its inconsiderate exercise, and to
remedy this the platform upon which I was elected recommends the
formulation in a statute of the conditions under which such a temporary
restraining order ought to issue. A statute can and ought to be framed
to embody the best modern practice, and can bring the subject so
closely to the attention of the court as to make abuses of the process
unlikely in the future. The American people, if I understand them,
insist that the authority of the courts shall be sustained, and are
opposed to any change in the procedure by which the powers of a court
may be weakened and the fearless and effective administration of
justice be interfered with.