Tazewell Republican. [volume] (Tazewell, Va.) 1892-1919, 1897-09-16

based their action The opinion of Presi-
dent Judge John A. McIlvain, of Wash
ington county, Pa, published in the lie
gal Intelligencer, shows with great clear
ness what the courts interfered with in
these strike injunctions and why they IN
terfered. The injunctons were not granted
against strikes nor against strikers inllu-
encing others to strike by the arts Of per-
suasion. Judge McIlvaip, in his decision,
holds that working men have right to
strike, to publish reasons for the sameand
to persuade others to follow their exam
pie. They may hold meetings, make
speeches and parade within reasonable
limits-do anything, in fact, that does not
interfere with the rights of others. Strikers
may march in legitimate parade; "but
parade confined to limited piece of pub
lie road before pit mouth and under a
tramway, repeated two or three times a
day for ten days OF two weeks, loses the
characteristic of legitimate parade, and
when directed against the interests Of the
mine owner over whose land tie road
passes, and INDUCED in contrary to his ex-
press command, it is trespass,"
Being a trespass and such an interference
with the rights of others it becomes the
duty of the court. on proper application,
to intervene to stop this trespass and in
centive to disorder before irremedilble
mischief has been done. The strikers may
use all lawful persuasion to get others to
join them, but Judge McIlvain points out
there is dividing line between persua'
sion and coercion. Language by Which
the working miners are called scabs, black
legs, black sheep, etc, accompanied With
threats of personal violence should they
not cease work, uttered and made by indi-
viduals engaged in the common purpose
of The strike, is clearly intended to coerce
and not persuade, and tends to create a
breach of the peace and to provoke a per-
sonal conflict between two large bodies of
men, and therefore cannot be claimed to
be lawful persuasion" The court will en-
Join such coercion before it provokes riot
and bloodshed. To march in an orderly
manner in the public highway is a legiti-
mate privilege not denied to any body Of
strikers. But wherein do the courts err
when they enjoin parade when the evil
dence shows that the paraders consist of a
body of strikers, armed with sticks, march
ing and countermarching close to the pits
mouth where non-strikers were at work
and in front of their houses where the
wives and children of The working miners
cowed in terror-the paraders singing
"We'll hang black legs on sour apple
tree" using opprobrious epithets and
threatening language toward the men who
would not join them? To forbid such DEM
onstrations and punish their repetition is
to protect the peacably disposed, prevent
riot and violence by stopping perform
ance which is a direct provocation Of dis
order
1t is not true that the law is adequate to
meet such cases without invoking equity.
The law provides aremedy for most wrongs
but the wrong must be committed before
the remedy can be invoked. The law will
punish rioters, but equity, being advised
of the danger, will intervene to pre"ent
the riot What constitutional rights are
invaded by such interference? Is it better
TO let things take their natural course and
then call out the militia to suppress the ri
oters? 1t is well to put out conhagraiion
as soon as it is under way. is still bet
ter to prevent its being kinded. 1t is this
latter function that the injunction has fill
ed in the recent strike. 1t preserved the
peace.