The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1897-08-13

Two instances of recent occurrence illus
trate the disposition Of corporations to seek
drastic and unusual remedies for the pro-
lection of their alleged rights. In both
cases an injunction was asked for, being
granted in one case and refused in the 9th r.
The injunction granted by Judge Jackson,
of West Virginia, has caused considerable
comment because it enjoined the striking
miners against prospective and imaginary
interference with the rights of property be-
fore any overt act had been committed. and
even went so far as to enjoin the strikers
from assembling for the purpose of induc-
ing others to join them. One clause of the
injunction is as follows:
And the defendants are further restrained
from assembling in the paths, approaches
ana ROADS upon the property leading to and
from thelr homes and residences to the
mines, along which the employees of the
compelled to travel to get to them, or in any
way interfering with the employees of said
company IN passing to and from their work
either by threats, menaces or Intimidation
and the defendants are further restrained
from entering the said mines and interfer-
ing with the employees in their mining OPP
eratlons within said mines or assembling
upon SAID property at or near the entrance
of said mines
That part of this order which forbids the
strikers from entering the mines or assem-
bling on the property of the company may
be all right, though it presses the doctrine
pretty far, because no overt act had been
committed, but the first part of the order
goes too far. No court has right to en-
join men from assembling in the paths ap-
proaches and roads along which other men
pass to and from their work. The right
of free assembly is as sacred as the right
of free speech. The law should only step in
to protect property or prevent violence,
and court has no right to assume that
public assemblage will lead to violence
In this case the corporation cried before
1t was hunt and the court was too swift
in granting an injunction.
In the other case Judge Heffren, of the
Daviess and Martin counties Circuit Court
in this State, refused to grant an injunc-
ton:
A body of miners from Green county
which is the home of eX-President Penna
of the national organization of United Mine
Workers, started across the country for the
mines in Pike county, fifty miles SOUTH
where the men We're at work, with the pur-
pose of getting the Pike county miners to
JOIN the STRIKERS. starting across DaVieSS
county on foot they arrived at Elnora, a
country village, and took possession of a
freight train headed south on the Evans
Vile ~ Indianapolis Railway, and which
would pass through Pike county Acting
under telegraph orders the trains crew
side-tracked the train and waited for the
sheriff who had been sent for. A deputy
from the sherins Office went to Elnora and
made formal demand of the men to vacate
the train. They refused to abandon COM
Portable corners in the box cars and the
company left the train on the country side
track and applied to Judge Heffren for a
writ of injunction restraining the miners
from interfering with the running of trains
and from attempting to ride.
In denying the writ, Judge Heffren said
that if the miners had forcibly stopped the
train or if they were destroying the proper
ty of the company or if such state of affairs
existed that would lead the company to be-
lieVe that any of the above grievances
would come about, then the company would
be justified in filing the petition. But no
such condition was urged to exist the effect
of the granting of the injunction would be
to help the railway to collect a few fares
from Elnora to LittleS; that the company
just as an individual would have when a
number of persons were unlawfully upon S
premises.
In this case also the corporation cried
before it was hurt. The strikers had not de-
stroyed any property and were not threat
enng to. In a legal sense they had taken
possession of the train, but it was peace
able possession. Legally they were tres
passers, but they were not rioters. On the
contrary they were perfectly good-natured,
and as the train was sdetracked the COM
pany could easily have starved them out
There was no more case for an injunction
than there would be if lot of picnickers
were to take possession of a farmers barn
during storm without showing any dispo-
sition to destroy property. In a legal sense
they would be trespassers, but there would
be no occasion for the farmer to go before
court and ask tor an injunction. In the
case in hand the men got tired of staying
in a sidetracked train and left it. 1t is we'll
to remember that a corporation has no
more rights than an individual. The rem
edy by injunction is proper one in proper
cases, but it should not be resorted to in friv-
olous cases nor should it be pushed too far
Corporations should not cry before they are
hurt, and when they come into court ask
ing for an injunction against the right of
free assemblage, or the right of free speech,
or against remote and imaginary wrongs,
they should be met with a firm refusal.