Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1897-07-31

ed from further pursuing lAe uAi"
nurpose. they will cause irreparaDie
damage to the plaintiff and irrepardDie
and incalculablbe loss and damage.
And the plaintiff further AYERS tnat
bv reason of the premises II cahnoC |
now successfully prosecute its business
and that it is without remedy a. law
and can only be protected ana relleNeu
in a court Of equity.
These are the principal allegations
of the bill. For the purposes OF thls
motion the allegations of the bill must
he considered as true and it only re-
mains for the court TO determine whe-
tber or not if the allegations of the Dill
are true, the plaintiff is entitled 10 tne
relief sought.
The Injunction will be refused unless
the court is satisfied from the allega-
tions of the plaintiffs bill that the pro
nertv or business of the piaintln IS
about 10 be destroyed, irreparaDly ID,
iI1red or great and lasting injury VIII
he done bv the wrongful and lllegal
acts of the defendants; if such be the
fact Il IS the duty of the court to admin
ister the only remedy which the law al
lows to prevent the commission or such
acts. II is we'll settled by authorizes
and cannot be doubted upon principie
that a court of equity should not heSi-
tate to use this power when the crcum-
stances of the particular case require II
m he done in order to protect the rlghts
and property of a citizen against IRE
parable damage by the wrong-doer. II
rnuet he horne in mind that stopping
persons business or preventing ID
borer from working is an INJURY
combination of men whose avowed anu
professed object is to injure ana oeStroy
the nronertv "a business Of another ana
who do anything in pursuance OF thaC
object and more especially If they sue
coed 10 anv extent in accomplishing
tbeir nurposes. and declare their lnten-
tion 70 continue, should be restrained
and prevented by some means from ac-
comn1ishing these purposes 1t Is no
answer to saw that these illegal and un-
lawful acts if accomplished subject the
rernetrators to criminal prosecution OF
subject the wrongdoers to actlons ior
damages. If the acts threatened Involve
irrenarable injury to or destruction OF
nronertv. as well as the continuous acts
of +respass. the remdy at law is wholly
inadeouate. and if the courts OF equity
did not interfere in cases OF thIs sur
then. as has been truly said by Justice
story. there would be "a great failure
of Justice in this country.
The jurisdiction of courts OF equity
IN controversies of this character is no
longer an omen question in this coun-
/ trv II is fully recognized in all the
federal courts and has been exercised
! in many of the State courts. The re-
cent case of F. NJ Arthur VS.. Thomas r
/ oaks Of ais. (63 Federal Reporter 9Ol),
Mr. Justice Hanlon. reviewing the tenn
norarv restraining order issued oy
Judge Jenkins. has presented SO ei''a.E,
" ,.-g toi toi.,,s.nrjjrscies ,.rjies as to forever Sc SCI
niZeS the rights UI eiEbe~ opinion recos,
organizations in the absence of a con.
tract binding the employe to a given
term of service whenever they become
dissatisfied with their employment OF
wages to quit the service Of the en-
! ployer either separately or collectively
/ and that they have a right by prear-
rangement or pre-concert of action to
unite together for taking peaceful or
/ lawful means to secure an increase OF
wages: to withdraw separately or in a
/ body from the service of the employer
when dissatisfied 1t is not competent
for the courts to interpose to restrain
/ their right of volition which is among
the natural and inalienable rights of ev-
cry citizen to work for whom he pleases
and where he can get employment and
to Quit whenver he is dissatisfied there
with But the opinion distinctly tan
nOunces the further proposition that
such men have no right to conspire and
combine together not only for the pur-
pose of securing better conditions and
wages and quitting the service if not Sc
cured but to go further for the purpose
of preventing the employer from sup
plying the places vacated with other
employees who are ready and willing to
take their places; and that they have
no right to combine and federate to-
gether for the purpose of injuring and
destroying the property of their en-
plover. or 70 obstruct and interfere
with his dominion over and control Of
his private property. The learned jus
tice says:
TT seems entirely clear. upon authority,
that any combination or conspiracy upon
the part of these employees would be lille
gal. who has for it's object to cripple the
property in the hands of the receivers. and
to embarrass the operation of the railroad
under their management. either by disab-
ling or rendering unfit for use the engines.
cars or other property In their hands, or
by interfering with their possessions, or
by actually obstructing their control and
management Of the property, or by using
force. intimidation, threats or other
wrongful methods against the receivers or
their agents, or against employees remain
ing in their service. or by using like msth-
DDS to cause the employees to quit, or pre-
vent or deter others from entering the sen
vice in place Of those leaving 1t. Com
b!nations OF that character disturb the
peace of society and are mischievious in
the extreme They imperll the interest of
the public. which may rightfully demand
that the free course Of trade shall not be
unreasonably obstructed. They endanger
the personal security and personal liberty
OF individuals. who. in the exercise Of their
privilege Of choosing the terms
upon which they viii labor, enter or at
tempt to enter the services OF those
against whom such combinations are aim
ed
The question is again very ably discuss
ed in the learned opinion of Judge Phil
lipp, Judge of the District Court Of the !
United States. in the case Of the United
States vs.. N. J. Elkott. e. ais. reported in
81 Federal Reporter, page q.
The Supreme Court Of the State OF Mis-
souri,, in well considered case, says:
"a court of ennitY NAV interfere by IN