The Saint Paul globe., 1897-10-04
SAUCE FOR THE GANDER.

The attempt of the Chicago street
railway company to prevent the orga-
nization of its employees into a labor
union, emphasized by their discharge
of several men prominent in the move
ment because they were leaders in it,
promises to furnish the country with
new illustration of government by in
junction. It is stated that an
injunction is to be sued out
restraining the company. from inter
fering with the formation of a union
and to restrain it from discharging
men solely because they are members
of the union or engaged in promoting
it. Heretofore we have had govern
ment Of employees by injunction, and
now we may see government of en-
ployers by the same process. It is a
poor rule that does not work both ways
and there seem to be as good reasons
why such an injunction will not lie
as there was for the one that pre-
vented men from using the public
highway.
In the first place the company is en-
deavoring to prevent it's men froIu
the enjoyment of a right whose exist
ence has been adjudicated In the IA
nous case of the injunction of Judge
Jenkins against the striking employees
Of the Northern Pacific, Justice Har-
!,
established the right of the men to
organize unions, a decision marking
long distance of progress since the
days of the labor laws of England that
made such attempts crimes. If it is
the right of employees to organize
themselves into unions for their mu-
tual advantage, then the threat of the
company to prevent it is a threatened
invasion Of right that is as justifabie
a case for the use of the<equity power
of the court as is any in which it has
been recently exercised If the com
pany go farther and actually discharge
men from it's employment because they
are organizing or have joined a union,
then the company tramples upon rights
that are res adjudicata. These propo-
sitions seem to be too clear for success
full controversy
But there is another phase of the
case that fortifies the application for
an injunction in this or similar cases.
Both of these parties to such contro-
Versies never take into account the in
terest, of the public. In their dispute.
Both employers and employees are
engaged in a public service which
they are bound to render on
the rendering of which the pub
lie depends, and which neither of them
has any right to put themselves or al
low themselves to be put into a posi-
tion that they cannot give. The COM
panies have no right to so treat their
ing their portion of the service to the
public, nor have the employees a righ+
to precipitate a conflict with the COM
pany that would produce the same re-
suit. IHlS 10 iiole duFdLceu ground
than any court has taken, but it is
ground that should be considered if the
court is asked to restrain a company
from denying its men the enjoyment of
a legal right which denial may pre-
cipitate a strike that would deprive
the public of it's right to continuous
service. Some day some court may de-
eide that the personal relations of these
two elements of one service are sub.
ordinate to their relations to the peo-
pie, and that they must each so con-
duct their mutual dealings as to main
tain intact their relations to the pub
lie.