The labor world. [volume] (Duluth, Minn.) 1896-current, 1901-08-03
ABUSED BY COURTS
POWER OF yNJGNC1I0N 10 INCOMING
NJGuTIDO HACW YEAR.
I've Kate Instances Although Trivial
illustrate che Absolute DisreGur1
BY the Courts Of the Original and
Rational Limitations Upon tho Use
Of the DQaitable Remedy OF the
Writ Of Injunction.

II additional evidence 10 needed to
provo the aecsssity Of avegting tho svi!
Of government by injunction as applied
10 organized labor. two recent instances
supply It. There have been weak at
tempts in congress at checking this
tyrsnnical and un-American practice,
but public opinion has not supported
chem, and tho agents Of plutooraoy
have had little difficulty In smothertng
even the mild anti-injunction bills.
BUT organised labor cannot abandon
the struggle, and it will be renewed at
every session Of congress and In every
state where the trade union movement
is strong enough to command respect
full attention from the politicians.
OF the two late instances just refer
red to one 10 rather trivial, but it illus
trates the absolute disregard by the
courts Of the original and rational lim1-
tations upon the use Of the equitable
remedy Of the writ of injunction. There
was a strike in one of the factories at
Patterson, N. j., and one woman, a
Mrs. Mcmahon, chose to separate her.
self from her sister employees and to
remain at work on the terms rejected
by the latter. According to the reports
in the daily newspapers this woman
was subjected to extreme annoyance by
the strikers and their friends and SYM
pathizers She was followed to her
home, insulted, jeered, abused and
threatened, and it appears that the
police failed to protect her. Not know
ing the facts, let US admit them for the
sake Of argument. If the strikers and
their friends were disorderly, it was
the business Of the city authorities to
compel them to maintain peace and
order. But the attorneys Of the COM
pany which had the strike on its hands
preferred to go to a court of equity
and petition for an injunction restrain
ing the whole working population of
the city practically from Annoying"
and interfering with the non-working
employee. The theory is, that an in
junction is justified only where there
is no adequate remedy at law and
when the threatened injury and wrong
would, if inflicted, be "irreparable."
It would be idle and farcical to pre-
tend that these annoyances and street
'demonstrations'' threatened irrepara-
bile injury to the subject of them or to
the employer, or that there was no
adequate remedy at law.
The fact is that the Injunction habit
IS growing and assuming forms as
monstrous in some respects az they are
audicrous and childish in others. Let
as now turn to the second and really
serious extension OF the favorite pluto
cratic remedy" A few weeks ago the
Supreme Court Of Pennsylvania affirm
ed lower court decree restraining the
officers and members Of a union from
prentices Of q certain employer. This
employer, it seems, has a profound,
6anaticaA prejudice against labor Or
CARNATIONS Of every kind. These work.
men are not organized, and he requires
them to bind themselves by oral agree
ment not to Join any union while re-
manning in his employ. The appren-
tices are required to sign written
pledge to the same effect. The officers
Of the enjoined union had attempted
to get the apprentices to disregard this
agreement and became members Of that
organization.
The Supreme Court states the case
Thus: 1.-THE appellee (the employer)
had an unquestioned right in the con-
duct of his business to employ men
who were independent of any labor I'M
&lv1 h. hoH ho F,s~k ,lo1ak b.
adopt a system Of apprenticeship which
excluded his apprentices from men,
belshlp in such union. He was respon-
sible to no one for his reasons In adopt
ing such system, and no one had g.
right to interfere with it to his pre-
judice or injury. Such interference with
It was an interference with his bust
ness, and, if unlawful, cannot be per-
n1itted."
Truly, there Is much virtue in an IF -
Certainly no unlawful interference can
be permitted. But was the interfer-
snce in the case unlawful? What did
the officers Of the union do? How did
they injure the business of the employ
or? The court itself thus states the
terrible and heinous offensa:
1.-THE appellants, outsiders, having no
connection with the business of the ap-
pelles, are charged with enticing and
endeavoring to entice the young men
employed by him to violate the cove
nants Of their apprenticeship with him,
and protection 10 prayed for against
the threatened ruin Of his business"
How beautifully vague and elastic
these words and phrases are! They
remind US OF the Infamous English
laws OF the early part Of the nineteen
tht century which, while protesting to
1egalize trade-unions, prohibited lob
struction." "molestation" and interfer-
encs with employers or their non-union
workmen. Who can define such an Of
tense az "endeavoring to entice?"
But let this pass. What the court
meant to say was that the union Off.
GERS had attempted to persuade the ap.
IN ioir thn r~ion