The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1897-08-16
Exceeding Its Prerogative.

A perusal of the text of the OMNIBUS
Injunction granted on Thursday in the
common pleas court Of Allegheny
county to restrain the striking miners
from trying in any manner to cause
the employees of the De Armit work.
ings to ioin their number compels the
belief that the judicial power in this
instance has been stretched. For the
benefit of those who have not seen H.
we print that injunction in full ana
recommend it to the study of our read
ers:
And now, to wit, Aug. u, 1897, upon
c1neiderotion of the bill filed in This
case, and Injunction afiidavits here"i'h
filed. and upon motion of S. Schoyer, Jr..
S. b. Schoyer, William Kaufman anu
Harry Alvin Hall. attorneys for plaintiit;
it is now ordered, adjudged and decreed
that a restraining order issue under the
seal of this court to Patrick Dolan' pres
ident; Edward Mckay, vice president,
and William Warner, secretary and treas
urer of District No. of the said United
Mine Workers of America; Patrick DO
Ian, William Warner, Edward Mckay
Andrew Savage Thomas Kissop, Law
renee Magdalene, John Larimer, Silas
Cole and Paul Trimmer the above named
defendants, and others associated with
them in the matters complained of in the
said bill, restraining and enjoining them
and each of them, from assembling
marching or enCamping in proximity of
the said mines and the houses of miners
of the plaintiff company, in Allegheny
county, Pennsylvania, for the purpose
by intimidation menaces, threats and OPP
probrious words of preventing said min
ers of said plaintiff company from work.
ing in said mines; and further restrain
ing and enjoining them, and each of
them, from Introducing or compelling any
of the employees or miners of the said
plaintiff now employed. or who may here
after he employed, to quit their work, or
10 leave the plaintiffs service, by any
threats, menace and show Of force or
other intimidation.
Observe that this Injunction differs
in an important particular from the
one issued by Judge Jackson at Par
kersburg. The latter simply forbade
trespass. 1t warned the strikers to
keep off the property of the mine COM
pany. But this Pittsburg instrument
goes further. 1t challenges the right
of assembly on the public highway and
declares in substance that the sweep
ing powers of the court are at the COM
mand of any employer who desires to
prevent gathering of workngmen to
discuss wage questions of interest to
his employees. True, the injunction is
sued on a petition which recited that
the lives of the men employed and
the safety of the property owned by
the petitioning company were menaced
by this prospective gathering Of the
defendant strikers; but that on an
NIB lot,
whole right of assembly is to be abro-
gated and society put under a kind of
judicial martial law is a proposition
which, it Strikes US, would not be toll
Grated for a moment If the objects of
its operation We're the coal operators
of Pittsburg instead Of their disaffected
employees.
In defense of this sweeping injunc-
tion decision by Judge Mitchell, of
the Pennsylvania Supreme court in the
case of ONeill VS.. Behanna, ct al, is
cited. This was a case on appeal from
Fayette county involving the definition
OF lawful and unlawful assembly, and
in passing upon it Judge Mitchell af-
firmed:
i'o', ~ 10 unlawful lntlfnludtlOn OF
ployes Tor large number of persons to
surround them and fellow them for n
considerable distance, urging them in n
hcstlle manner not to go to work and
gaining them. opprobrious names, though
no Pnysical violence is done, and persons
are liable 10 damages to the employer
oecoNu' Where persons are going to n
pace or employment, either under con-
hIct 10 WORK, or in search of work
oenels nave no right to stop them and
occupy their time, without their consont
oi tndt OF their employer, if actually en-
Postu' III order TO peacefully urge them
not TO 80 to work; and persons CO SnI,iL
are HaDle to the employer in damages
These principles manifestlv
sound, but we do not see that tbnv an
ply to the Pittsburg case There has
oeen no intimidation practiced or
threatened near the De Armit mines
neither had workmen under contract
with DE Armit been stopped against
thelr or his will. But even tbougb
they mad been stopped and hindered
peacefully, De Armit's redress. ac-
cording to Justice Mitchell. wouId
nave peen in an action in damages,
ana not in blanket Injunction. is
sued ON baised petition in advance
Oh any transgression of law. The
vicious influence of such extraordinary
exercise OF the judicial prerogative
consists of the fact that 1t tends TO
confirm labor in the belief that in
legal issue between it and capital, cap
ital is liable to receive the larger mar
Gin OF consideration. In the main.
this belief is unfounded, but in excep-
tional instances like the present con-
sideration there appears to be enough
of leaning toward the side of capital
TO excite suspicion, which, whether Just
or unjust, are undoubtedly Injurious.
Sim dowp tba oha.-