The record-union. [volume] (Sacramento, Calif.) 1891-1903, 1895-11-30
THE LAW OF LIBERTY.

THE LAW OF LIBERTY.
The Debs school of philosophers
never tire of railing at the courts, los
ing sight of the fact that the same laws
which guarantee to the citizen the en-
jcyment of his possessions and the re-
wards of his industry are the identical
statutes that secure the Debs agitators
in their right to criticise and contemn
the courts, and appeal for modification
Of the laws to meet their selfish and I'M
reasonable demands
The courts are the interpreters of the
laws the people in their sovereign ca
pacity prescribe and stand to protect
from invasion of their rights, as we'll
the anarchist and the railer, as those
who demand the shield of the laws in
the exercise of their right to conduct
their business in their own way within
the law
Debs roars Justify at the courts of
equity jurisdiction for prohibiting him
from trespassing upon the rights of
others, while in the same breath he in
vokes the protection of the laws for his
scheme Of undoing others. Montes-
quieu's definition of liberty is not ac-
cepted by him: Liberty is the right
Of r1a+ fa 10 p
citizen could do what they forbid, he
would be no longer possessed of liberty,
because all his fellow citizens would
have the same power" With the agi-
tator class, of which Debs is prophet,
liberty is non-restraint, and not as
Schaff puts it: "a positive force regu-
lated by law; the moral power of self
government"
The Supreme Court of Missouri on
Wednesday by unanimous decision de-
fined liberty precisely as citizens do
who believe it to be possible only under
legal restraint, and exactly in opposi-
ton to the views of the Debsites, who
deny the power of the courts Of equity
to impose upon them restraint of I'M
lawful doing In St. Louis shoe con-
Germ there was a strike some months
ago, led by one Saxey, who, with his
followers, picketed the establishment,
and by threats and intimidation at
tempted to coerce non-striking workers
into joining hands with the strikers. a
court of equity enjoined Saxey and his
crew from interfering with these men.
The strikers claimed that if their acts
constituted an offense they were amen
able to the criminal laws, and would
fall under the Jurisdiction of the GRIM
inal courts only; that therefore a court
of equity had no power to interpose to
prevent the unlawful action
That is to say. precisely as Debs con-
tends, the strikers had the right to go
on with their programme, browbeat,
intimidate and COW others, and compel
them TO leave their benches; that if
that was criminal they should be ar
rested and be brought to trial, but not
checked by the arm of the law. The
Supreme Court, however, finds no vir-
tue in this logic. and says in very plain
English what civilization has said for
centuries, that he who is doing an act
that infringes upon the right of an
other, who has no speedy and adequate
remedy at law, may be afforded pro-
lection in the form of intervention to
prevent the continuance of the unlaw
full acts. The court does not go to the
extent that other courts have. Indeed,
it is more favorable to the strikers than
was held in the famous Vermont case,
which is a leading one if not the ruling
one. However, it is sufficient for one
thing, the affirmation of the powers
and duties of courts of equity when pc
titioned to restrain strikers from in
vading the liberties of others. 1t as
serts the old rule that the law will
protect the rights of strikers as quickly
and fully as the rights of any others,
but it will also restrain them from in
ringing upon the liberties of other
men The court says of the strikers:
They have a right TO use fair persuasion
10 induce others to join them in quitting
But when fair persuasion Is exhausted
they have no right TO resort to force or
threats Of violence The law win protect
their freedom and their rights, but il will
not permit them to affect the freedom and
rights of others. The same law which
guarantees the defendants their right to
Quit the employment of the plaintiffs at
their viii and pleasure also guarantees
the other employees to remain al their viii
and pleasure. The defendants are their
own masters. but they are not the masters
of the other employees, and not only are
they not their masters, but they are not
even their guardians.
This is expressing anew the memoir
able sentiment enunciated by Daniel
Webster: Liberty exists in proper
ton to wholesome restraint: the more
restraint on others to keep off from us
the more liberty we have" 1t pro-
claims once more the maxim: THE
law limits every power which it be-
slows"
A CAUSE FOR 1T.