Argument on the Anti-Injunction Bill (S. B. 1035) Before Hon. Wm. D. Stephens, Governor of California, Monday, May 21, 1917

Original publisher's beige paper wrappers with gilt lettering on front cover. No lettering on spine. A printed letter with F. J. Koster's facsimile signature is laid in which introduces the pamphlet. No date, circa 1917. 5" x 7." Forty-seven pages, complete. Pages are virtually pristine and intact except for light age toning and a small spot of darkening on Page 27. Covers are very clean and intact except for slight bumping to extremities, very small stains on exteriors and interiors of covers, and light age toning. A Very Good, almost Near Fine copy. This pamphlet contains the printed text of an argument made by Max J. Kuhl, attorney representing the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce, against the Anti-Injunction Bill (Senate Bill (SB) 1035). Kuhl originally presented his argument before William D. Stephens, Governor of California. The bill had passed both houses of California Congress but was ultimately vetoed by Stephens after Kuhl's argument. Foreword by Frederick J. Koster, President of the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce. Kuhl incorporates in-depth analyses as part of his argument against the Anti-injunction Bil (an injunction is a court order to do or not do something). SB 1035 was introduced by the American Federation of Labor. Kuhl prefaces that while he fully supports the right of organizing (from a labor perspective), he is decidedly opposed to the corrupt overreach of labor organizations. He says labor organizations cannot unconstitutionally install their own form of governance within a government. He implies that SB 1035 is a form of labor overreach. He also clarifies that not every part of SB 1035 is corrupt from his conclusions and thus he will not address those parts of the bill with which he finds no legal concerns with in his argument. Kuhl divides his argument into several parts. One of the first parts of SB 1035 that Kuhl takes issue with is its statement that labor is not a "commodity" or "article of commerce." He explains that labor is inherently property and argues that for a poor man, his labor is all the property he has. He ultimately contends that this statement of SB 1035 strips away the rights of employees because their labor is no longer legally recognized and thus no longer has any legal protections. Specifically, he says that if SB 1035 were to pass, courts could not order injunctions protecting an employee's labor because it is no longer legally recognized as property. Kuhl briefly references economists Adam Smith and John Stuart Mill to underscore his argument that the bill's supposition that labor is not property is a flawed economic idea. Another key part of Kuhl's argument is that SB 1035 weakens protections against peaceful threats such as the brandishing weapons without using them as a form of intimidation. He elaborates upon this concept and argues that threatening forms of picketing would go unpunished under SB 1035. However, Kuhl argues the most "vicious" part of SB 1035 is a passage that says people in contempt of court (who disobey injunctions) are entitled to a trial by jury who will determine if they are in contempt or not. Kuhl uses his own analyses, longstanding principles of English law, and the rulings of previous cases to argue against this part of the bill. He summarizes that this passage of the bill unconstitutionally weakens the courts. He explains that if SB 1035 were to pass and allow the right to trial by jury for contempt, the courts' initial injunctions could very easily be overruled by the jury's decision, thus making the courts inefficient and relatively powerless. …