The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1897-07-31

J.
right by pre-agreement or pre-con-
cert OF acton to unite together for tax
Ing peaceful or lawful means TO secure
an Increase OF wages; 10 withdraw sepa-
rately or In body from the service OF the
employer when dissatisfied. II is not
competent for the courts TO lnterpose 10
restrain their right OF volltion, which
is among the natural and inallenabla
rights OF every citizen 10 work for whom
he pleases and where he can get en-.
ployment and TO quit whenever he II
dissatisfied Herewith. But the opinion
distinctly announces the further prop
osltlon that such men have no right IL
conspire and combine together not Only
for the purpose OF securing better condi-
tions and wages and quitting the SER
Vice II not secured, but 10 go further for
The purpose OF preventing the employer
from supplying the places vacated with
other employees who are ready and will
Ing to take their places; and that they
have no right to combine and federatd
together for the purpose OF lnjuring and
destroying the property OF their em'
ployer or 10 obstruct and Interfere with
his dominion over and control OF his pri-
yate property The learned Justice says;
Authorities cited.
ut seems entirely clear. upon author,
ity, that any combination or conspiracy
upon the part OF these employees would
be Illegal, which has for its object TO
cripple the property In the hands OF thu
receivers, and to embarrass the opera.
tion OF the railroad under their man
agement, either by disabling or render
Ing unit for use the engines, cars or
other property in their hands. or by in
terferin8 with their possession, or by
actually obstructing their control and
management OF the property, or by
using force, intimidation, threats or 9TH
er wrongful methods against the re-
celyers or their agents, or against en-
ployes remaining in their service, or by
using like methods to cause the en-.
ployes TO quit, or prevent or deter 9TH
ers from entering the service in place
OF those leaving It. Combinations OF
that character disturb the peace OF so.
ciety. and are mlschlevous in the ex-
treme. They imperll the interest OF thu
public, which may rlghtfully demand
that the free course of trade shall moi
be unreasonably obstructed. They en-.
danger the personal security and tht
personal liberty OF individuals, who, In
the exercise of their inallenable prlvi.
lege OF choosing the terms upon which
they will labor. enter or attempt TO en-.
ter the services OF those against whom
such combinations are aimed"
The question ls again very ably dis.
cussed in the learned opinion ot Judge
Phillip, Judge OF the district court OF
the United States. in the case OF the
United States VS.. NJ. ]. Elliott. ct ais, re-
ported In 81 Federal Reporter. page 27,
The supreme court Of the state Of Mis-
sourl In well considered case says:
"a court OF equity may interfere by in
Junction TO prevent persons from at
tempting by intimidation, threats or per-
sonal violence and other unlawful
means, to force employees TO quit work
and Join In a strike"
Hamilton Brown Shoe Company VS..
Saxey ct al, 80 S. W. Rep, 110G
The prayer in the bill in the last named
case Is very similar to the prayer found
| In the case at bar. II asks among other
That the defendants. their associates
| and confederatee be enjolned from In
any manner interfering with the en-
| ployes OF this plaintiff now In the en-
| ploy Of the plaintiff, and from In any
manner interfering with any person who
may desire to enter the employ Of this
plaintiff. by use OF threats. personal vlo-
lence, intimidation or other means cal.
culated to terrorlze or alarm the plain.
tins employees In any manner or form
whatever; and that said defendants and
their associates and cOnfederates
aforesaid be refralned by order
OF this court from undertaking
by the use of the means aforesaid to in.
ducc or cause any of the employees OF this
plaintiff to quit the employment OF this
plaintiff. and that the defendants afore-
said and their associates and confeder-
ates be enjoined from cungregatlng and
lettering about the premises OF this
plaintiff At the place aforesaid, and that
they be required by injunction of this
court to go about their ordinary business
and abstain from In any way interfering
with the business OF this plaintiff.
Intimidation Restrained.
And by an additional order entered In
this case the defendants were restrained
"From attempting to force the plaintiffs
employees to leave their work by intimi-
dalton and threats OF violence and for
assembling for that purpose In the vicln-
lty Of the plaintiffs factory"
It will be seen By the reference to the
case Just quoted from that the prayer
OF the bill and the Injunction granted are
very similar to the prayer Of the bill In
the case now before me, This case, az
have said, went to the supreme court OF
the state OF Missouri and was sustained
The same questions have recently been
passed upon by the circuit court Of Allie
gbany county, state OF Maryland In the
case Of the Consolidated Coal Company
OF Maryland against William Il. Wilson
et ais, In which case the plaintiff asked
among other thlngs, for an order
prohibiting each and all OF them from
continuing their unlawful assemhlages
in or near Ia the said mlnes, or on ur near
the paths md approaches leading to the
mines. OF the said Consolidated Coal
Company, and from continuing to as
semble there with Intent to forcibly pre-.
vent the miners working for your orator
in said mines. and from going to work
therein and from then and there using
threats, menaces, shouts, chow OF force,
and offers OF violence TO interfere With,
prevent and stop the miners In said
mines of your orator from continuing
their daily labor therein"
This caso will be found In the circuit
court OF Allegheny county, state ct
Maryland, No. 1894 Equity.
II will thus be seen that the right and
duty of the courts TO proceed by lnJunc-
tlon In proper cases are well recognized
In this country
I am OF the opinion that the plalntlff''
bill upon lts face presents case which
comes entirely within the ndJudlcated
cases. and will, therefore, Issue q tenn
porary restraining order
The material facts In the case OF IN,
Mnnongah Conf and Coke Company VS.
The same parties In which m Injunction
NJ nl.n naNnl fur hnlnr nrnrllrnllN Tho