The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1900-05-02


%, in a very well considered opinion
II is held that an employer has the
right to engage all persons who are
willing to work for him at such prices
as may be mutually agreed upon, and
persons employed or seeking employ
ment have a corresponding right to en-
ter into or remain in the employment
of any person or corporation willing
to employ them. Commonwealth VS..
Perry. 155 Mass. III; (31 Am. st. Rep.
$3.50 People VS.. ellison. 100 n. Y, 3S9:
a Am. St. Rep. 1861; Braceville Coal
company VS.. People 147 ILL., 66; (37 Am.
st. Rep. 206); Ritchie VS. People, 1855
ILL.,, 9S; H6 Am. st. Rep. Sl5); Low VS..
Rees Printing company, Al Neb. 127
H3 Am. st. Rep. 670). No one can law
fully interfere by force or intimidation
to prevent employers or persons en-
poyed or willing to be employed, from
the exercise of these rights. Intimida-
ton is not limited to threats of violence
or a physical injury to person or prop
erty. 1t has a broader significance and
there may also be a moral intimida-
tion which is illegal. A combination to
do injurious acts expressly directed to
another by way of intimidation or con-
straint, either of himself or of the per-
sons employed or seeking to be en-
ployed by him, is outside of the allow
able competition and is unlawful.
I'm Hamilton Brown Shoe company
VS.. SaXey, 131 Missouri 212. the court
holds that an injunction in cases Of
this kind does not hinder the defend
ants doing anything that they may not
do in violation of law. They are free
men and have a right to quit the en-
ployment of the plaintiff whenever
they see fit to do so and no one can
prevent them: and whether their act
is wise or unwse. just or unjust, is
nobody's business but their own. And
they have right to use fair persua-
sion to induce others to join them in
their quitting, but when fair persua-
sion is exhausted they have no right
to resort to force or threats of vio-
lence. The law will protect their free
dom and their rights, but it will not
permit them to destroy the freedom
| and rights of others. The same law
| which guarantees the defendants in
their right to quit the employment of
! the plaintiff at their own will and
pleasure. also guarantees the other
| employees the right to remain at their
will and pleasure. These defendants
are their own masters, but they are
| not the masters of other employees,
| and not only are they not the mas
ters of other employees. but they are
net even their guardians. There is a
maxim Of our law to the effect that
| one may exercise his own right as he
| pleases, provided that he does not
| thereby prevent another from eXer-
cising his right as he pleases. The
| maxim as a rule of law, is nearer
| than any other rule in our law to the
| golden rule of Divine au thority, That
| which you would have others do unto
you, do ye even so unto them While
| the strict enforcement of the golden
| rule is beyond the mandate of a hu-
man tribunal, yet courts of equity, by
| injunc ton, do restrain men who are
so disposed from exercising their owr
rights as to destroy the rights OF
others. Sherry VS.. Perkins, 147 Mass
212; Longsnore Printing Co. vs.. How
ELL. 26 Or. 527.
The defendants have the right tC
refuse to work for the plaintiff. They
cannot, however. interfere with thu
personal wishes of others who desir,
to work by threats, menaces or dis
play of force. AS the engineers, the
firemen and the pumpmen desire tC
continue in their present employment
with the plaintiff, and as the fact;
contained in the bill are confessed
that the defendants, by means OF
threats, have intimdated and are. a:
consequence, about to drive from
their work the engineers, the fire.
men and the pumpmen, and in the
event of the employees being driver
from the duties at which they arr
now engaged, great and irrepara bic
injury will be done to the propert,
rights of the plaintiff, under the Law
we cannot do otherwise than to ALLOW
the motion now pending before us t.
continue the injunction"